WP/6/2020 of SRI NARAYANA REDDY Vs SRI MOHAN K REDDY on 19 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by defendant Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 13, calling in question the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.No.1 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short ‘CPC’) whereby the application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint has

Verified

HC-KAR

been allowed, at a stage when the suit had already been set down for arguments.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Though respondent No.1/plaintiff has been served with notice, he has chosen not to contest the present proceedings.

3. This Court has meticulously examined the pleadings of the parties and, in particular, the defence set up by defendant No.1 in the written statement. The written statement discloses that the defendants have set up a plea of partition having taken place in the year 1965. In support of the said plea, reliance is placed on a registered Partition Deed dated 31.03.1965, registered in the office of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar.

4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid defence based on the registered Partition Deed, the material question which required consideration by the learned Trial Judge was whether the agreement of the year 1960, now sought to

Verified

HC-KAR

be relied upon by the plaintiff consequent upon the confrontation of the said document, has any bearing or relevance to the subject matter of the present partition suit. The plaintiff seeks to contend that the defendants had agreed to relinquish their respective shares in the property described in Schedule-J. Significantly, the Schedule-J property is admittedly the subject matter of the registered Partition Deed dated 31.03.1965.

5. In the above factual backdrop, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Judge has not assigned any reasons for allowing the amendment application, particularly when the matter had already been set down for arguments. The impugned order is cryptic and, prima facie, indicates that the learned Trial Judge has not adverted to the relevant pleadings, documents and the circumstances in which the amendment was sought.

6. Though amendments in a suit for partition are ordinarily required to be considered liberally, the same

Verified

HC-KAR

principle cannot dispense with the requirement of examining the nature, relevance and stage of the proposed amendment. In the present case, the defendants have set up a specific plea of partition on the strength of a registered Partition Deed dated 31.03.1965. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Judge was required to consider whether an alleged unregistered agreement of the year 1960, which was admittedly not pleaded in the original plaint and which is stated to have surfaced pursuant to confrontation with the registered Partition Deed, could be introduced by way of amendment when the suit had reached the stage of arguments. These material aspects have not been considered by the learned Trial Judge.

7. The impugned order also does not disclose any consideration of the original pleadings or the evidence already recorded. The order merely allows the amendment without examining whether the proposed amendment is

Verified

HC-KAR

germane to the controversy between the parties, whether it introduces a new factual foundation and, more particularly, whether the alleged agreement of the year 1960 has any bearing on the rights claimed by the plaintiff in respect of the Schedule-J property in the face of the registered Partition Deed dated 31.03.1965.

8. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the learned Trial Judge. The impugned order, having been passed without adverting to the material pleadings, documents and the stage of the proceedings, cannot be sustained. The matter therefore deserves to be remitted to the learned Trial Judge for fresh consideration of I.A.No.1 in accordance with law.

9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, including the evidentiary value or admissibility of the registered Partition Deed dated 31.03.1965 or the alleged

Verified

HC-KAR

unregistered agreement of the year 1960 marked as Ex.D1. The learned Trial Judge shall independently consider the application on its own merits.

10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted to the learned Trial Court for fresh consideration of I.A.No.1, after affording reasonable opportunity to both parties to address their arguments afresh.

(iv) The learned Trial Judge shall, while reconsidering the application, advert to the original pleadings, the rival contentions, the registered Partition Deed dated 31.03.1965 and the alleged unregistered agreement of the

Verified

HC-KAR

year 1960 marked as Ex.D1, and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

(v) It is clarified that the learned Trial Court shall decide the application uninfluenced by any observations made in this order touching upon the merits of the rival claims.

(vi) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Verified