Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 312
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Kankanala Shyam Sunder - Petitioner
Versus
Moluguri Venkateswarlu & others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 4349 of 2025
Decided On : 22-04-2026
For the Petitioner: Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar
For the Respondents: Sri Srikanth Hariharan, Sri S. Rama Mohana Rao.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC cannot be allowed if they introduce substantive, time-barred claims that fundamentally alter the nature of the suit, as this would unfairly deprive the opposing party of a protected right of limitation.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Principles for allowance - Amendments seeking to introduce time-barred claims or fundamentally alter the nature of the suit must be disallowed, even under the doctrine of liberal interpretation. (Paras 12, 14-16)
(B) Limitation - Article 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts - Accrual of cause of action - Limitation is three years from the date of dissolution; a party cannot circumvent this period by way of amendment to an ongoing suit for declaration and injunction. (Paras 15, 17-18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner (Defendant No. 1) challenged an order allowing an amendment that introduced claims for the dissolution of a partnership and an accounting of funds. The respondent (Plaintiff) sought these amendments years after a dissolution notice was issued, which the petitioner argued rendered the new claims time-barred.
Findings of Court:
The court distinguished between supplementary amendments, which add factual clarity, and substantive amendments, which shift the fundamental nature of the litigation. It upheld the former but rejected the latter as being time-barred and prejudicial to the defendant's accrued rights.
Issues: Whether the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action or raised time-barred claims in violation of the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment that changes the character of the suit or introduces a claim barred by limitation, divesting the opposite party of a valuable accrued defense, cannot be permitted regardless of the liberal approach to procedural rules.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed.
ORDER :
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
This Revision is filed by Petitioner - Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.147 of 2019, assailing the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial in I.A. No.161 of 2024, whereby the Trial Court allowed the amendment petition filed by Respondent No.1/Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), permitting Plaintiff to amend the plaint as prayed for.
2. The essential facts, briefly stated, are that Respondent No.1 - plaintiff instituted O.S. No.147 of 2019 against Petitioner and other Defendants, seeking a declaration that Plaintiff is a co-owner entitled to 1/4th share in Schedule ‘A’ to ‘C’ properties as properties of the partnership concern "M/s Matrusri Infra", cancellation of certain sale documents and agreements of sale-cum-GPAs executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of third parties, and consequential injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties.
3. The case of Respondent No. 1 - Plaintiff before the Trial Court, as set out in the plaint is that, Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 formed a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Matrusri Infra vide a deed of partnership dated 26.12.2011, registered as Firm No.24 of 2012 with the Registrar of Firms. The firm was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of lands, plots, and buildings in real estate. The partnership was a partnership-at-will. Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were the working partners. Plaintiff alleged that the landed properties of the firm were purchased from partnership funds, mainly contributed by Plaintiff, Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.4. It was alleged that Defendant No.1 mismanaged the affairs of the firm, failed to co-operate, got certain partnership properties mutated in his individual name in collusion with revenue authorities, and alienated portions of partnership properties to his family members and associates without the consent of other partners. On 30.08.2019, a dissolution notice was issued by Plaintiff along with Defendants 3 and 4, calling upon Defendant No.1 to render accounts, while intimating that the partnership firm stood dissolved immediately upon receipt of the said notice. The suit was instituted on 04.12.2019.
4. The case of Petitioner - Defendant No.1 before the Trial Court, as set out in the written statement is that, Petitioner - Defendant No. 1 denied the material averments of the plaint, contending inter alia that the suit schedule properties are not partnership properties but individual properties purchased by the respective persons in their own right. He contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the partnership firm as a party. He further contended that Plaintiff is estopped from claiming the reliefs sought. He submitted that the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.5 had jointly purchased the properties covered under Schedule ‘A’ and that Plaintiff had himself expressed his intention to sell his undivided share in the above properties. He asserted that Plaintiff executed an Agreement of Sale dated 06.02.2014 in favour of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.5 for valuable sale consideration and delivered possession. He denied that the properties were purchased from partnership funds or on behalf of the partnership business.
5. When the suit stood posted for hearing on framing of issues, Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff filed I.A. No.161 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking leave to amend the plaint. The proposed amendments sought to: (i) add paras 8-A, 8-B, 9-A, and 9-B to introduce additional facts relating to specific land ventures of the partnership firm, including the involvement of certain associates; (ii) add paras 27-A and 27-B(i) and (ii) relating to valuation and court fee for the additional reliefs; (iii) introduce two new reliefs, namely: Relief A(i) dissolution of the registered partnership firm No.24/2012 by decree of court, and relief A(
