HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

* * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2 225 of 2025

Between:

Surisetty Appala Raju

..... PETITIONER

AND

Gotimukkala Perraju and 7 others

....RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT RESERVED : 27.02.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 10.04.2026

DATE OF JUDGMENT UPLOADED : 10.04.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments?

Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

2

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2225 of 2025

% 10.04.2026

# Surisetty Appala Raju

….Petitioner

Versus

$ Gotimukkala Perraju and 7 others

....Respondents

! Counsel for the Petitioner : A. V. Pardha Saradhi

^ Counsel for respondents : Sri Venkata Saketh Roy Vidyula

< Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1. (2006) 6 SCC 498

2. (2004) 6 SCC 415

3. 2018 (2) ALD 315

4. Unreported judgment dt.11.12.2025

In WP.No.15490 of 2025, High Court of Bombay

5. 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3592

6. (2019) 4 SCC 332

7. (2009) 10 SCC 84

8. (2012) 11 SCC 341

9. (2008) 5 SCC 117

10. (2012) 2 SCC 300

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2225 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri A. V. Pardha Saradhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Venkata Saketh Roy Vydyula, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit. The challenge is to the

Order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Visakhapatnam in I. A. No. 317 of 2025 in O. S. No. 1094 of 2014.

I.A. No. 317 of 2025 was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for amendment under

Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (in short „CPC‟) and the

same was rejected.

I. Facts:

3. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants/respondents 1

to 8 seeking mandatory injunction for removal of wall constructed by the

defendants and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from

making any further construction after removal of the wall.

4. The prayer in the plaint reads as under:

“VI. Therefore, the plaintiff humbly prays that the Honourable Court may be

pleased to pass a decree and judgment in his favour and against the defendant

for:

a) To grant mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the wall

constructed by them illegally which is shown in red in the rough sketch;

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

4

b) To grant consequential permanent injunction restraining defendants from

making any further construction after removal of the illegally constructed wall

shown in red in the sketch, directing the defendants 1, 2 & 3 to leave a clear

way of 12 feet for ever from the 30 feet main road on the wet leading to the

plaintiff’s house;

c) For costs of the suit and

d) To grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court may deem fit

and proper under the circumstances of the case.”

5. At the stage of evidence and belatedly almost after about 11 years

the application for amendment was filed. The plaintiff sought declaration that

the construction made by the defendants in an extent of 11 square yards into

12 feet wide road as shown in the plaint plan were illegal and consequential

mandatory injunction to remove those construction and in case defendants

failed to comply, permit the plaintiff to remove the constructions and recover

the expenses from the defendants. The plaintiff prayed to substitute by

amendment, para-VI (a) of the plaint with the following paragraph:

“VI (a) To declare that the constructions made by the defendants in an

extent of 11 sq.yds into 12 feet wide road as shown in the plaint plan are illegal

and consequential mandatory injunction to remove the illegal construction

made into 12 feet wide road the defendants failed to comply with the same,

permit the plaintiff to remove the same and recover the expenses from the

defendants.”

6. Defendants/respondents 1, 2, 5 to 8 filed counters. They submitted

that the petitioner could not be permitted to seek amendment as the trial had

commenced. The petition was filed at a belated stage as well at the time of

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

5

evidence of DW 2 only to drag on the proceedings. There was lack of due

diligence at a earliest point of time in applying for amendment.

II. Impugned Order:

7. The learned VI Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam

framed the following points for determination.

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of amendment of pleadings in

the plaint, as prayed for?”

8. The learned trial Court held that the trial had commenced. As per

Order VI Rule 17 CPC its proviso, there was a bar that no application for

amendment was allowed after the trial commenced and unless the Court was

satisfied that in spite of due diligence the plaintiff could not have filed the

application for amendment before the commencement of trial. The suit was at

the fag end. The plaintiff could not satisfy that in spite of due diligence he

could not file the application for amendment before commencement of trial.

The cause stated by the plaintiffs was that due to inadvertence the plaintiff

failed to notice the issue framed by the trial Court. The learned trial Court held

that it was not believable that the plaintiff was not aware of the issues framed

and got knowledge only after lapse of 8 years from framing of the issues. Such

fact did not prove the due diligence on the part of the plaintiff. Thus

considered, the learned trial Court dismissed the application.

III. Submissions of learned counsel:

i) For Petitioner:

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

6

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment can

be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. The learned trial Court was not

right in dismissing the application for amendment on the ground of delay. He

submitted that the commencement of trial in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC

must be understood in the limited sense, meaning the final hearing of suit,

examination of witness, filing of documents and the stage of arguments. He

submitted that since the stage of addressing the arguments had not been

reached, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial had commenced. In his

submission, the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC was not attracted.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

amendment was only in the prayer clause and it did not require leading of

further evidence and no prejudice would have been caused to the defendants if

the amendment was allowed.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the following

judgments:

1. Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh

1

2. Pankaja v. Yellappa (D) by Lrs.

2

3. Dhulipalla Srinivasa Rao v. Kandula Govardhana Rao

3

4. Sushila Gopal Tejale v. Babanbai Sakharam Chandramore

4

1

(2006) 6 SCC 498

2

(2004) 6 SCC 415

3

2018 (2) ALD 315

4

Unreported judgment dt.11.12.2025,

In WP.No.15490 of 2025, High Court of Bombay

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

7

ii) For Respondents:

12. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after framing of

the issues, the trial had commenced. The stage is of cross examination of

PW.2. It cannot be said that the trial had not commenced. Proviso to Order VI

Rule 17 CPC was attracted and unless due diligence was shown the amendment

could not be allowed. He submitted that the plea taken by the plaintiff, that,

the plaintiff was not aware of the issues as framed, is not the due diligence

within the meaning of this expression in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. He

submitted that the delay is also to be taken into account when the application

for amendment had been filed at highly belated stage only to drag on the

proceedings of the suit.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in the following

judgments:

1. Mahammed Saleem v. Neeladri Appanna

5

2. M. Revanna v. Anjanamma (Dead) by LRs

6

3. Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and

Sons

7

.

IV. Point for determination:

14. The following point arises for consideration and determination:

5

2025 SCC OnLine AP 3592

6

(2019) 4 SCC 332

7

(2009) 10 SCC 84

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

8

“Whether the application for amendment in plaint has been rightly

rejected by the impugned order under the provisions of Order VI Rule

17, Proviso CPC?”

V. Consideration:

15. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material

on record.

16. Order VI Rule 17 CPC reads as under:

“17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the

proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner

and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as

may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in

controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has

commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due

diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement

of trial.”

17. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex

Court on consideration of various pronouncements on the issue of amendment

laid down the principles and the factors to be taken into consideration while

dealing with the applications for amendments, which are as follows, vide

paragraphs 63 and 64:

“Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for

amendments

63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic

principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or

rejecting the application for amendment:

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

9

(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective

adjudication of the case;

(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;

(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which

cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple

litigation;

(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally

changes the nature and character of the case; and

(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on

the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.

These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while

dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative

and not exhaustive.

64. The decision on an application made under Order 6 Rule 17 is a very

serious judicial exercise and the said exercise should never be undertaken in a

casual manner. We can conclude our discussion by observing that while

deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide,

legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala

fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments.”

18. In Pankaja (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the jurisdiction to allow or not to allow an

amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on a

judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is

sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of

justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be

no straitjacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings.

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

10

19. So, on the point of amendment of pleadings, it is settled in law that

all such amendments shall be allowed as may be necessary for the purpose of

determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and such an

amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings.

20. Now, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC clearly provides that no

application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced,

unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party

could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

21. In other words, even after commencement of trial, an amendment of

the pleadings can be allowed, but the applicant has to satisfy the Court that

there was due diligence and in spite thereof he could not apply for amendment

before the commencement of trial.

22. In M. Revanna (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court laid down that the

proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment

of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court

comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have

raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an

extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore,

the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of

the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not

have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment

cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Para-7 of

M. Revanna (supra) reads as under:

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

11

“7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new

and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The

proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an application for

amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has

commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due

diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the

commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute

discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the

person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that

in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought

earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a

matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are

allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to

take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or

mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side

which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.”

23. In Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu

8

it was held that the parties to

the suit are permitted to bring forward the amendments of the pleadings at any

stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in

controversy between them and that the Courts have to be liberal in accepting

the same, if such application for amendment is made prior to commencement

of trial, and that when the application is made after the commencement of trial,

in that event the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due

diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of

the trial. Para-10 and 11 in Abdul Rehman (supra) reads as under:

8

(2012) 11 SCC 341

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

12

“10. Before considering the factual details and the materials placed by the

appellants praying for amendment of their plaint, it is useful to refer Order 6

Rule 17 which is as under:

“17.Amendment of pleadings.—The court may at any stage of the

proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner

and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as

may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in

controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial

has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due

diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement

of trial.”

It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment

of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining

the real question in controversy between them. The courts have to be liberal in

accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial.

If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event,

the court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party

could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

11. The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999,

however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an

added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the

trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of

due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the

commencement of trial. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute

discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed

after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it

could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that courts should

try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently,

allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question

in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or

prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

13

power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the

proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the

amendment is to minimise the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by

way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the

facts and circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated

by this Court in J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh [(2012) 2 SCC 300 : (2012) 1 SCC

(Civ) 801] and Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd. [(2012) 5

SCC 337 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 92] Keeping the above principles in mind, let us

consider whether the appellants have made out a case for amendment.

24. So, the expression „commencement of trial‟ and „due diligence‟ are of

relevance and importance.

25. The expression “commencement of trial” was considered in Baldev

Singh (supra). The Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the proviso to Oder VI Rule

17 CPC provides that the amendment of pleading shall not be allowed when the

trial of the suit has already been commenced. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held

that the commencement of trial must be understood in the limited sense as

meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of

documents and addressing of arguments.

26. Paragraph No.17 of Baldev Singh (supra) is as under:

“17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6

Rule 17 CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when

the trial of the suit has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined

the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears

from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in

the suit. From the record, it also appears that the suit was not on the verge of

conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial court. That apart,

commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code

of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

14

final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and

addressing of arguments. As noted hereinbefore, parties are yet to file their

documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment

of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which

confers wide power and unfettered discretion to the court to allow an

amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings.”

27. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that

addressing of arguments had not taken place, so, the trial has not commenced

as all the things are to be taken together i.e., final hearing of suits, examination

of witnesses and filing of documents and addressing of arguments and if any of

the above stages has not been reached, then there would not be any

commencement of trial and in that situation the rejection of the application

would not be justified.

28. In Baldev Singh (supra) the amendment application was rejected

by the trial Court and such rejection was also on the ground that there was no

due diligence and the amendment was sought after commencement of trial,

along with some other grounds. The contention of the respondent in Baldev

Singh (supra) was that the documentary evidence had not been filed, and

therefore, there was no reason to reject the application for amendment filed

under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Hon‟ble Apex Court observed that

the parties had not filed the documentary evidence in the suit which was not on

the verge of conclusion. It was recorded that the trial had not commenced.

29. In the present case the documents have been filed. The oral

evidence has also been laid and the case is at the stage of evidence of the

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

15

cross examination of DW 2 when the application for amendment was filed. So,

in the present case it cannot be said that the trial has not commenced.

30. Expression used is „commencement of trial‟ in the proviso to Order VI

Rule 17 CPC and not „conclusion of trial‟. All these stages, after framing of

issues, filing of documents etc., examination of witnesses and addressing of

arguments are during the trial and after the stage of final hearing the judgment

is either delivered then and there / or the suit is reserved for judgment. In

either case, the trial comes to an end or is concluded, by delivering judgment

then and there or by reserving the judgment. If the submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is accepted that unless all those things are taken

together the trial has not commenced, that would amount to rewriting the

proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and in that case the use of expressions

„commencement‟ and „due diligence‟ would be rendered nugatory.

31. In Baldev Singh (supra) the meaning of the „commencement of

trial‟ is very clear. It cannot be understood, in the way the submission has

been advanced by the petitioner‟s counsel. The commencement of trial and all

the stages as mentioned in Baldev Singh (supra) are during the trial. The

ratio of the said judgment is that after commencement of trial, at any stage,

during trial, i.e., examination of witnesses, filing of documents, final hearing of

suit, addressing of arguments, the application for amendment can be filed

because filing of such an application for amendment at any of those stages

would be after the commencement of the trial. The filing of application for

amendment or even allowing the application for amendment at any of those

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

16

stages is not barred under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. But for

considering such an application for amendment, besides the other factors, what

would be required to prove is the due diligence, i.e., subject to the condition of

the satisfaction of due diligence by the Court which is a pre-condition under the

proviso itself.

32. This Court is of the view that notwithstanding commencement of

trial, the amendment can be allowed and there is no bar in allowing the

application even after commencement of trial, but the requirement is that the

applicant must satisfy the Court that in spite of due diligence, he could not

apply for amendment prior to the commencement of trial.

33. In Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand

9

the Hon‟ble

Apex Court considered the meaning of the term „due diligence‟. It was

answered that the words "due diligence" have not been defined in the Code.

According to Oxford Dictionary (Edn. 2006), the word "diligence" means careful

and persistent application or effort. "Diligent" means careful and steady in

application to one's work and duties, showing care and effort. As per Black's

Law Dictionary (18th Edn.), "diligence" means a continual effort to accomplish

something, care; caution; the attention and care required from a person in a

given situation. "Due diligence" means the diligence reasonably expected from,

and ordinarily exercised by a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or

to discharge an obligation. According to Words and Phrases by Drain-Dyspnea

(Permanent Edn.13-A) "due diligence", in law, means doing everything

9

(2008) 5 SCC 117

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

17

reasonable, not everything possible. Unless the party takes prompt steps, mere

action cannot be accepted and file a petition after the commencement of trial.

34. In Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh

10

the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that

the term 'due diligence' is used in the Code so as to provide a test for

determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested

amendment after the commencement of the trial. Relevant paragraphs 19 and

23 read as under:

"19. Due diligence is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before

certain kinds of relief are requested. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for

a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief.

An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine

that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term

`Due diligence' is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for

determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested

amendment after the commencement of trial.

23. Though the counsel for the appellants have cited many decisions, on

perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided prior to

the insertion of Order VI Rule 17 with proviso or on the peculiar facts of that

case. This Court in various decisions upheld the power that in deserving cases,

the Court can allow delayed amendment by compensating the other side by

awarding costs. The entire object of the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 as

introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of application for amending a pleading

subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties

had sufficient knowledge of other's case. It also helps checking the delays in

filing the applications. [vide Aniglase Yohannan vs. Ramlatha and Others,

(2005) 7 SCC 534, Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and Another vs. Swami

Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, Chander Kanta Bansal vs.Rajinder Singh

Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117, Rajkumar Guraward (dead) through

10

(2012) 2 SCC 300

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

18

LRS. vs. S.K.Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and Another, (2008) 14

SCC 364, Vidyabai and Others vs. Padmalatha and Another, (2009) 2 SCC 409,

and Man Kaur (dead) By LRS vs. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512.

(emphasis Supplied)”

35. The petitioner‟s contention about the due diligence, is that the

plaintiff was not aware of the issues framed. Such contention, firstly, cannot be

believed and even if it be so that, he was not aware of the issues framed, such

non-awareness of framing of issues cannot be a ground so as to constitute due

diligence for not applying amendment in plaint. The plaintiff is not applying to

the Court for reframing of issues or for additional issues to be framed in the

suit. So, the plaintiff‟s awareness or no awareness about the issues framed is of

no relevance in the matter of amendment of plaint.

36. The due diligence means that the applicant was vigilant, he exercised

such reasonable care which is expected of a reasonable man to apply for

amendment before commencement of trial and to show that in spite thereof the

application could not be filed. The plaintiff has failed to prove the due diligence

in filing the application for amendment of plaint filed after the commencement

of trial and unless the due diligence was proved, the application for amendment

could not be allowed.

37. There is no dispute on the proposition of law on the point of

amendment of pleadings as in the case of Dhulipalla Srinivasa Rao (supra),

Sushila Gopal Tejale (supra) and Mahammed Saleem (supra), in which

also the same principle of law on amendment, including the scope of proviso to

Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been discussed.

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

19

38. Further, I find force in the submission advanced by the learned

counsel for the respondents, that the application was filed only to delay the

proceedings of the suit which was filed in the year 2014, the same is also the

finding recorded by the learned trial Court, that to prolong the proceedings of

the suit, this application was filed.

39. Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy

the Court as to why such an amendment in the prayer clause was required. The

reason is that, the declaration sought is, that the constructions raised by the

defendant to a certain extent in the alleged common passage be declared to be

as illegal. The plaintiff had already prayed for demolition/removal of those

constructions alleging those to be illegal and raised in the common passage. If

the Court during trial finds that the plaint schedule property i.e., the alleged

common passage, is common passage and the construction has been made

illegally, a prayer for demolition can be granted even without there being the

prayer, as sought to be amended in the manner prayed.

VI. Conclusions:

40. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the

application for amendment filed by the petitioner was after the commencement

of trial and the petitioner failed to show that in spite of due diligence, the

application could not be filed before the commencement of the trial and

consequently, in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC the learned trial

Court was right in rejecting the application for amendment.

41. The point for determination is answered accordingly.

RNT, J

CRP No.2225 of 2025

20

VII. Result:

42. Thus, considered. I do not find any force in the civil revision petition

which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in

consequence.

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

Date:10.04.2026

Dsr

Note:

LR copy to be marked

B/o

Dsr