Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot be allowed if they withdraw a material admission, fundamentally alter the nature of the suit, or are filed without demonstrating due diligence, particularly when changing a plea from dispossession to continued possession.

O R D E R:

Heard Mr.H.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Dandi Shaila. Despite due service of notice to respondent Nos.1 to 3, None appearance for respondents.

2.1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 358 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad, seeking a declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

2.2. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1119 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), seeking amendment of paragraphs 9 and 12 of the plaint on the ground that certain typographical errors had crept into the pleadings relating to possession and the cause of action. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 20.01.2025, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3.1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to apply the settled principles governing amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is submitted that the proposed amendment was necessitated solely to rectify an inadvertent typographical error whereby the suit was mistakenly described as one for “declaration and recovery of possession” instead of “declaration of title and perpetual injunction.”

3.2. It is further contended that the proposed amendment does not alter the nature or foundation of the cause of action and ought to have been allowed in a liberal manner in furtherance of justice.

3.3. The learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiff had already paid the requisite court fee under Section 24(b) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, which is applicable to suits for declaration of title with consequential injunction. This, according to the petitioner, clearly demonstrates the true nature of the suit from its inception.

3.4. It is further argued that the finding of the trial Court that the amendment amounts to withdrawal of an admission regarding dispossession is erroneous, as the amendment merely seeks to correct an inadvertent error and does not introduce any inconsistent or new plea.

3.5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Pioneer Builders , (2006) 12 SCC 119, wherein it was held that the power to allow amendment is wide and should be exercised liberally in the interest of justice, particularly where no prejudice is caused to the opposite party and the amendment avoids multiplicity of proceedings.

3.6. Further reliance is placed on Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down guiding factors for deciding amendment applications, emphasizing that amendments necessary for proper adjudication and which do not fundamentally change the nature of the case should ordinarily be allowed.

4. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material available on record.

6. The trial Court, in the impugned order, observed that in the original plaint the plaintiff had