THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.2269 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Mr. M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner /

defendant No.1; Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / plaintiff, Mr. M.Pramod, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. Mounik Reddy, learned counsel, representing Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by defendant No.1 assailing the order dated 28.04.2025, in I.A.No.1379 of 2024 in O.S.No.746 of 2014, passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 and respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. For convenience, they will hereinafter be referred to as per rank before the Trial Court.

4. Vide the impugned order, the Court below has allowed the aforesaid I.A. filed by defendant No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for amendment of the plaint by incorporating para 7(a) and 7(b) after para 7 of the plaint, serial Nos.16 and 17 at para 17 of the plaint for the purpose of valuation of schedule ‘P’ and ‘Q’ properties, and to add schedule ‘P’ property, schedule ‘Q’ property after schedule ‘O’ property.

5. The facts of the case, are that, the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition. The suit schedule property is that which is reflected as schedule ‘A’ property till schedule ‘O’ property in the plaint. The suit was one which was filed as early as in the year 2014. Pending the matter before the Court below, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid I.A. seeking amendment of the plaint by adding 7(a) and 7(b) immediately after para 7 in the plaint. Vide the said amendment, the plaintiff intended to add two more properties in the list of suit schedule properties and which should be subjected to partition.

6. According to the plaintiff, he came to know about the said two more properties much after filing of the suit. Therefore, he intended to add schedule ‘P’ and ‘Q’ properties after schedule ‘O’ property and all of which be treated as the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, these two properties also were either in the name of joint family or were the properties purchased from the joint family funds.

7. It is this allowing of the amendment which has led to the filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition.

8. According to the defendant No1, the plaintiff has not been able to give a satisfactory or a plausible explanation for the unreasonable delay on his part in seeking to amend and addition of two more properties to be part of the suit schedule properties. According to the defendant No.1, the plaintiff has also failed to explain and provide sufficient pleadings so as to establish the newly added properties to be one which was purchased from the joint family funds.

9. It was also the contention of the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff all along was aware of the existence of these two properties and yet chose it not be made as a part of the suit schedule properties at the first instance and now at this belated stage has sought for the amendment of the suit by adding these two properties. This amendment sought for being without any explanation, ought to have been rejected by the Trial Court.

10. The defendant No.1, in support of his contentions, relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Gopal Sah alias Shiv Gopal Sahu vs. Sita Ram Saraugi and Others, (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 120 wherein the Supreme Court has refused to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay.

11. Per contra, the plaintiff opposing the Civil Revision Petition contended that it is a suit for partition and by way of an amendment all

that he seeks is to add two more properties to the list of suit schedule properties already enclosed in the plaint. It w