IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.193 OF 2023 DATED: 23^rd JANUARY 2026 Between:

Bommineni Papi Reddy ... Petitioner - Plaintiff And

1.Thotakuri Srinivas and another ... Respondents - Defendants

ORDER

1. This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda, in I.A.No.986 of 2022 in O.S.No.778 of 2012, dated 30.12.2022.

2. Petitioner is the petitioner – plaintiff and respondents are the respondents – defendants in I.A.No.986 of 2022 in O.S.No.778 of

2012.

3.1 Petitioner – plaintiff has filed I.A.No.986 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to permit him to amend the amended plaint fair copies.

3.2 It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner – plaintiff has filed suit against the respondents – defendants for specific performance of contract. At the time of filing of the suit he has made some correction in the plaint in para No.3 but unfortunately said correction was not carried out in the other side copies, it happened due to oversight. Petitioner - plaintiff has filed two I.As i.e., one application is to implead the respondent – defendant No.2 as party to the suit vide I.A.No.819 of 2017 and it was allowed on 11.12.2017; and another application is to amend the plaint to make necessary consequential amendments in the suit vide I.A.No.1069 of 2020 and the same was allowed on 28.02.2020. The petitioner – plaintiff has filed two amended plaint fair copies but without mentioning the corrections made in two amended plaint fair copies. The mistake is due to oversight, typographical but not intentional nor willful and prayed to allow the application.

4. Respondent No.2 – defendant No.2 filed counter and contended that whatever amendment is sought by the petitioner in the petition, previously neither it is ordered by any of the application but on what competency and authority the petitioner – plaintiff has added such unwarranted insertion at the end of Para No.3 of the plaint. Proposed amendment was already brought to the notice of the leaned Trial Court and prayed to dismiss the application.

5. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.12.2022 has dismissed I.A.No.986 of 2022 in O.S.No.778 of 2012 which is impugned in the CRP.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court without looking into the facts of the case, has not considered the prayer to amend the amended plaint fair copies, has passed a perverse order by dismissing the application. The learned Trial Court ought to have seen the reasons mentioned by the petitioner - plaintiff in the affidavit and ought to have seen that the subject matter of the suit is with regard to specific performance of the agreement of sale. Counsel further submits that the amendment does not change the nature of the suit as contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. In support of his contention relied on the decision in the case of M/s.Hi Sheet Industries v. Litelon Limited and Others, AIR 2007 MADRAS 78

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – defendant No.2 contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner – plaintiff by assigning cogent reasons, no interference is called for and prayed to dismiss the CRP.

8.1 During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff has filed certified copy of O.S.No.778 of 2012, which copy is also served on learned counsel for respondent No.2. On perusal of the certified copy of O.S.No.778 of 2012, respondent No.2 – defendant No.2 is added as a party to the suit vide I.A.No.819 of 2017, dated 11.12.2017.

8.2 Pleadings and prayer portion are also amended in the suit as per order in I.A.No.1069 of 2019 dated 28.02.2020 by incorporating para No.6(a) and prayer is added to declare the registered gift deed vide d