CRP/4262/2025 of T.Durga Prasad Vs Venkateshwarlu Gorry alias Venkateshwarlu Talakokkula on 9 January 2026

1. Venkateshwarlu Gorry alias Venkateshwarlu Talakokkula, S/o. Late T. Rajaiah, Represented by GPA Holder T. Ravi, Aged about 59 years, Occ- Employment, R/o, Plot No. 46, Margadarsini Colony, Opp Jain Mandir, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. Presently residing at USA

2. Smt. Talakokkula Rajya Lakshmi, Wo Late Rajaiah, aged about 76 years, Occupation- Housewife,

3. Talakokkula Srinivas (died), No address

4. Sri Talakokku Ravi, S/o.Late Rajalah. aged 51 years, Occupation- Service, ( Respondent No.2 and 4 are residing at PIot No.46, Margadarsrni Colony Opp. Jain Mandhir, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad)

5. SRO, Bowenpally (Not Necessary Party) ...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants

l.A. No. 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circum; ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleir, ed to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.1 22 of 2019 on the file of Xll Addl. Chief Jr,r ge, City Civil Courts, at Secunderabad pending disposal of the CRP in the interest of ju{;l ce . Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. SRINIVAS REDDY BALAKISTj Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P.B.A. RATNAMALA, REPII :SENTING SRI. P. VINAYAKA SWAMY The Court made the following ORDER :

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.4262 of 2025 Dated: 09.01.2026 Between: T.Durga Prasad & another , . . Petitioners And Venkateshwarlu Gorry alias Venkateshwarlu Talakokkula & others ...Respondents ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr.Srinivas Reddy Balakisti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.B.A.Ratnamala, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Vinayaka Swamy, leamed counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The instant is the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia and the challenge is to the order dated 20.08.2025 in I.A.No.775 of 2025 in O.S.No.l22 of 2019 on the file of XII Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

\

3. l/ide the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application filed for amendment of the plaint for ir serting certain paragraphs. The suit primarily filed by the plain.iff is for the cancellation of the registered Release deed anc also the Gift Settlement deed. The suit is the one which was f I :d in the year 2019. tn the meanwhile, the pleadings were comp,t te, the written statement was also filed, issues were also framed rnd thereafter, PW.1 submitted his aff,rdavit in chief. When the mrt er was posted for cross-examination of the plaintiff witness, it is at this stage, I.A.No.775 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner /plaintiffs on 02.07.2025 seeking to add certain additional paragra rhs in the suit which was disallowed by the rrail Court. The trial lourt rejected the aforesaid t.A. firstly on the ground that at the lr lated stage at which the amendment has been sought for; recondly, the amendment sought for is based upon the conrt ntion of the defendants in the written statement and thirdly the 1 laintiffs were all along aware of these developments and documeo.s which they referred to in these amended paragraphs.

J

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, assailing the said order Contends that it was the plaintiffs suit and plaintifls intended to amend the pleadings to some extent based upon the materials those were gathered in the course of the completion of the pteadings of the suit. It was also the contention that not much prejudice would have been caused to the interest of the respondents if the amendment would have been allowed. It was also the contention of the petitioner that legal proposition as it stands, the amendments would be carried out at any stage of the trial and the defendants could have been suitably compensated by imposition of any cost.

5. Having heard the contentions pucforth on either side and on perusal of the pleadings, admittedly, the suit is the one which was filed in the year 2019 filed for seeking cancellation of registered release deed and also cancellation of gift settlement deed. The pleadings in the instant case were all concluded and the matter stood for trial when this amendment has been sought. The amendment sought for, on the plain reading of it, would clearly indicate that the same is only to add consequential relief to the T

existing prayer in the plaint and thereby the petir ioner seeks to amend the suit as a matter of improvement upon ris case based upon the pleadings that has come in the written statr) nent.

6. trarned counsel for the petitioner rt:) ied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ir Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak Tanksal I and Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro Bank N.V and otherl. The I are perusal of the facts of the case on the basis of which aforesaid wo judgments have been given would clearly give an indication t rat the factual matrix of the said two cases were under entirely diffi rent backdrop that prevails in the instant petition and therefore, th: same cannot be applied in the case on hand for the following rea; rns: firstly, on the ground that the amendmenr has been sought fr. after six (6) years of filing of suit and secondly for the rr:.son that the amendment has been sought for in order to imprr ve their case based upon the specific denial by the defendants o the written statement and lastly for the reason that it is not th: case of the plaintiff that they are not aware of these developmen s prior to the 'lzoozye scc z:z r AtR 2oo7 supreme cou( 2511sc filing ofthe suit yet ifthey have chosen not to take those contents in the pliant at the first instance, they could now at the belated stage permitted to improve upon their case by keep on amending the plaint on the basis ofthe stand taken by the defendants.

7. This Court therefore do not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for interference in the impugned order.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and stands dismissed. No costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalt stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- K,MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

The XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunde bad One CC to SRI SRINIVAS REDDY BALAKIST|, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRl. P. VINAYAKA SWAMY, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies Kul/PSL &,, I

HIGH COURT DATED: 0910112026

ORDER

CRP.No.4262 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 2I ?

\u,, ittt a.; ( ', .J lI' r li ") \\E \1.;'c + C)

I * 7-t s '/'l*