THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.2776 of 2025

ORDER:

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners /

plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.07.2025, in I.A.No.169 of 2025 in O.S.No.214 of 2024, passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Mr. C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. R.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiffs; and Mr. Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for respondent / defendant Nos.1 and 2.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed a petition filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint by inserting para 11A in the plaint, the cause title, valuation, Court fee and also in the prayer paras.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners / plaintiffs contended that the amendment sought for would not substantially change the nature of relief, but is only a consequential relief, which in addition to the relief sought for was required to be added and which would not in any manner prejudice the interest of the defendants. Therefore, the dismissal of the Order VI Rule 17 petition by the Trial Court is bad in law.

5. However, upon perusal of the pleadings and documents enclosed along with the instant Revision, what is apparently evident is that the suit in the instant case was filed in the year 2012 and after the notices were issued, the defendants filed their written statement on 25.04.2013. This by itself would go to establish how old the suit was, what was the relief sought for and what was the stand taken by the defendants, both being a decade ago. Subsequently, the parties contested the case and when it has reached the fag end of final arguments, the present amendment petition has been filed.

6. What is also evident is the fact that the petitioners / plaintiffs have not been able to give a plausible explanation as to why the suit was not amended by them immediately when the written statement was filed by the defendants or even at the time when the issues were framed and they even did not care to seek for an appropriate amendment during the course of trial i.e. when the evidence of the parties was recorded. Further, the evidence of both the sides have already been concluded and the matter now stands posted for final arguments. At this stage, seeking such a relief, in the opinion of this Court is not proper, legal and justified and the Trial Court seems to have rightly dismissed the amendment petition.

7. The instant Revision, thus being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

_____________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 10.10.2025

GSD