IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Dated:20.01.2026 Between:

Solluri Ramaswamy …Petitioner And Seelu Thirupathi …Respondent

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 19.12.2024, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, in I.A.No.396 of 2023 in O.S.No.169 of 2021, in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.

for amendment of the plaint.

2. Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri V.Rohith, learned Counsel-on-record for the petitioner and Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for respondent.

3. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.169 of 2021 for recovery of money against Respondent basing on two promissory notes, dated 15.08.2018 and 23.08.2018. Respondent entered appearance and filed written statement, issues were framed and trial commenced. Plaintiff was examined as PW1 and when the matter was coming up for further evidence of plaintiff, petitioner herein filed application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the date ‘28.08.2018’ as ‘23.08.2018’ in page No.2 of tenth line of para No.4 of plaint.

5. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the said application by observing that amendment is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties even after the commencement of trial and that a categorical admission cannot be resiled from by way of amendment. Aggrieved by the same, present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that due to a typographical error in the plaint, the date of promissory note was mentioned as ‘28.08.2018’ instead of ‘23.08.2018’ and the said mistake was neither intentional nor deliberate, therefore, it is just and essential to amend the date mentioned in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. He further submitted that in the preamble of the suit claim itself, it is clearly stated that the claim was made under two promissory notes dated 23.08.2018 and 15.08.2018 and along with the plaint, two promissory notes were filed, and photostat copies of the said two promissory notes are placed on record for perusal of this Court.

6.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the error is only with regard to the date and all other details in the promissory note are correct. He further submitted that the petitioner is not seeking to amend any averment or pleading in the plaint, except the date of promissory note in paragraph No.4 of the plaint and as such, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by such amendment. He further submitted that the trial Court has misdirected itself in holding that such amendment would cause injustice and prejudice to the defendant and it would not amount to filling up the lacunas in his case.

6.2. Learned senior counsel further contended that the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 CPC would confer power on the Court to allow a party to alter or amend his pleadings, however, the trial Court failed to exercise such power and erroneously dismissed the application filed for amendment and accordingly, prayed to set aside the impugned order. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs.

Sanjeev Builders Pvt Ltd, 2022(5) ALD 261 (SC)

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that trial Court has rightly observed that after admission of the petitioner (PW-1) in his cross examination with regard to the date ‘28.08.2018’, the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings, since such amendment causes injustice and prejudice to the respondent and hence, rightly dismissed the application. He further submitted that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality

or irregularity in the