Sri Inampudi Rama Mohan Rao v. Smt. B. Indira
Case brief
What is this about?
Article 227 Constitution; limited scope of supervisory interference; plausible view; patent illegality; palpable procedural impropriety; bull in a china shop; Section 151 CPC; amendment of pleadings; reopen suit after final hearing; judgment reserved; due diligence post commencement of trial; Vidyabai v. Padmarathr (SC) distinguished; Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil relied on; O.S.No.484 of 2014; I.A.No.1089 of 2024; I.A.No.1 of 2025 (stay petition); XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; CRP No.193 of 2025 dismissed without costs; counsel for petitioner Atchuthananda Dondeti; respondents/defendants include Miss. D. Sruthi Vittal and Smt. B. Indira, family of Late D. Srikanth Vittal, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
What did the court decide?
The parameters to decide an amendment application are different depending on whether it is filed before or after commencement of trial: a pre-trial application is treated leniently, whereas an application filed post commencement of trial must establish due diligence.