Plaintiff's suit for perpetual injunction was dismissed; on appeal he sought amendment of pleading and prayer under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add declaration of title. The appellate court dismissed the amendment petition for lack of diligence and change of suit nature; the High Court found no merit and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
13217 I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 442 OF 2025
Petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code againstthe Order dated 06.12.2024 Passed in lA.No.554 of 2024 in A.S.No.4of 2019 on the file of the Court of llAdditional District Judge, Nizamabad.
Between:
Jameel Ali, S/o. Shaik Meera, Aged about 51years, Occ. Business,R/o. H.No 1-63i2, Oddera Colony, Kalledi Village 8s Mandal,Nizamabad Distric!.
...Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant
AND
...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,the High Court may be pleasedto grant interim Stay of all further Proceedings in the Appeal Suit No.4 of 2019on the file of the ll Additional District Judge,Nizamabad, pending disposalof the above CRP.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl MOHAMMEDABDUL RASHEED
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. RAKHISIKHWALrepresenting SRI TVKALYANSINGH
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.442 of 2025
ORDER:
This;(livil Revision petition has been filerl clrallenging the proprieb,, of the order dated 06.12.2024 in I.l'1. No.554 of 2024 n A.S. No.4 of 2019 passed by the l::arned II Additionat I)i strict Judge, Nizamabad.
2
seeking amendment of pleading and prayer under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. The appellate Court, having considered the petition and the relevalt statutory position, held that the petition at this stage is devoid of rnerit and dismissed the petition. Thus, the present revision has been filed.
( I,
\
3
I l
I
petition ltefrre the trial Court or even before the appellate Court at the earliest.
7 Be 1.hat as it may, as per the relevant prr.r,isron order VI RuLe 17 of CpC contemplates that the prayer for amendmenl. of pleadings can be allowed gener ot:sly until commenconlent of trial. However, the proviso clarifies that once the t.na l is set forth, the petitioner m ust sa1 isfy that though he n'as d igent, could not seek ame:rdment of pleadings ltefore commencement of tria,l
I
.-!!-
4
be stretched to hold that even at the appellate stagethe matter can be set back to the stage of pleadings.
1 1 . In the result, the revision petition 1S dismissed, reserving the rights of the revision petitioner/appellantto avail other remedies available underlaw, ifso advised.No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any,pending in this civil revision petition shall standclosed.
SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
ADIC?SL
PMq.
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:05103t2025
ORDER
CRP.No.442 'ot 2025
',===:=
1 HE :jl AI s
(
(
(
a
C,
,j -) 21 I'rA' ll[25
,r
s
t
:(l
l1,r!,/,r:l'a
:-:= = =,,t
DISMISSING THE GRP
WITHOUT COSTS
0^.c., 2r\s .r
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court erred in dismissing an Order VI Rule 17 CPC application to amend the plaint and prayer at the appeal stage.
Whether belated amendment seeking declaration of title in an injunction suit, without due-diligence explanation, could be permitted.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Jameel Ali
Miryal Gandhi
Miryal Omprakash
N.Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
