Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16448

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J
V. Shivanand – Appellant
Versus
V. Hara Gopal – Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 2487, 2509 and 3913 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Bala Mohan Reddy
For the Respondents: Eranki Phani Kumar

The obligation to carry out an amendment under Order VI Rule 18 CPC rests exclusively on the party who sought and obtained leave to amend; failure to comply does not authorize the court to dismiss the suit, nor can a party be compelled to amend their own pleading at the instance of an adversary.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 18 - Failure to amend after order - Consequence of non-compliance - Dismissal of suit for default for not carrying out amendment by Plaintiff at the instance of Defendants is not permissible - The obligation to amend rests solely on the party who sought leave to amend - Provision does not authorize dismissal of the suit.

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VI Rule 17 and Order I Rule 10 - Amendment of pleadings and Impleadment of parties - Necessity of reasoned orders - Parties cannot be added or pleadings amended without the Court recording satisfaction as to due diligence and necessary interest - Mechanical allowance of applications without considering objections or recording reasons renders orders unsustainable.

Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed a suit for partition. During the trial, Defendants filed applications under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint and Order I Rule 10 to implead their mother as a defendant. The Trial Court allowed these and directed the Plaintiff to carry out amendments, dismissing the suit for default upon non-compliance. The Petitioner challenged the amendment, the impleadment, and the dismissal order.

Findings of Court:
Trial Court misconstrued the scope of Order VI Rule 18 CPC by penalizing the Plaintiff for failing to carry out amendments sought by the Defendants. The Court failed to maintain judicial propriety by dismissing the suit while revision petitions were pending. The interlocutory orders were also set aside for lack of reasoned determination and failure to record satisfaction regarding statutory requirements.

Issues: Whether dismissing a suit for failing to amend under Order VI Rule 18 at the behest of the opposing party is legal and whether the orders allowing amendment/impleadment were vitiated by failure to record reasons.

Ratio Decidendi: The obligation to amend under Order VI Rule 18 lies only on the applicant; dismissal of the suit is not a prescribed consequence of non-compliance. Furthermore, judicial orders affecting substantive rights must be reasoned and evidence-based, especially when applying provisions regarding the addition of necessary parties.

Result: Civil Revision Petitions allowed; suit restored; interlocutory applications remitted for fresh reasoned consideration.

Table of Content
1. summary of the procedural history and facts leading to the revision petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. summary of arguments by petitioner and respondents regarding procedural irregularities. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. interpretation of order vi rule 18 cpc regarding failure to amend pleadings. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. procedural law should promote justice rather than defeat it on technical defaults. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. statutory requirements for amendment (o. vi r. 17) and impleadment (o. i r. 10). (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. requirement for reasoned orders as a component of judicial decision-making. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
7. judicial propriety prohibiting orders that render pending revisions infructuous. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
8. final outcome and instructions for trial court's fresh consideration. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)

COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 27.04.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? : Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals : Yes/No

3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship wish to see the fair copy of judgment : Yes/No

VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J

GIST :

HEAD NOTE:

Cases referred:

1. (2005) 12 SCC 1

2. (1968) 3 SCR 163

3. 2022 SCC Online SC 1234

4. (1982) 2 SCC 596

5. 2011 SCC Online Mad 2161

6. (2010) 9 SCC 496

7. (1976) 2 SCC 981

8. (2010) 4 SCC 785

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri. Eranki Phani Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. Perused the material available on the record.

C.R.P.No.2487 of 2023

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.274 of 2023 in O.S.No.59 of 2016. By the said Order, the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short ‘CPC’) permitting amendment of the prayer portion of the plaint by substituting the existing sub-para-No.1 and incorporating the following as sub-para-No.1:

“That the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are each entitled to 1/4th share, and the plaintiff and defendants are further entitled to equal shares out of the remaining 1/4th share in Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties.”

C.R.P.No.2509 of 2023

3. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.275 of 2023 in O.S.No.59 of 2016. By the said order, dated 10.07.2023, the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC R/w. Section 28 of Civil Rules of Practice (for short ‘CRP’) seeking impleadment of the proposed respondent as a party to the suit by adding her as respondent No.3/defendant No.3 along with consequential amendment of the plaint, including incorporation of a claim for share, as may be entitled in law, in her favour.

C.R.P.No.3913 of 2023

4. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the Docket order”) in O.S.No.59 of 2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District. By the impugned Docket Order dated 06.11.2023, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit for default for not carrying out the amendment in the plaint.

5. Since all the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same Original Suit bearing O.S. No. 59 of 2016 and the parties therein are one and the same, these Petitions are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common Order.

6. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the learned Tria

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16448

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADVakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JV. Shivanand – AppellantVersusV. Hara Gopal – RespondentC.R.P. Nos. 2487, 2509 and 3913 of 2023

The obligation to carry out an amendment under Order VI Rule 18 CPC rests exclusively on the party who sought and obtained leave to amend; failure to comply does not authorize the court to dismiss the suit, nor can a party be compelled to amend their own pleading at the instance of an adversary.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J
V. Shivanand – Appellant
Versus
V. Hara Gopal – Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 2487, 2509 and 3913 of 2023