The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that correcting the extent of a property and fixing a typographical error in a plaintiff's name during a pending partition suit does not alter the nature of the case. Setting aside a trial court's order, the High Court allowed the amendments sought by the plaintiff, observing that the proposed changes were necessary for deciding the real dispute between the parties and would not prejudice the defendants.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from Civil Revision Petition No. 1515 of 2025, filed by Sidagam Jatlamma, who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 98 of 2018, a partition suit pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Peddapuram. The plaintiff had moved an application seeking two amendments correction of the spelling of her name in the cause title and replacement of the property extent in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule from 1100 square yards/square metres to Ac.0.03 cents.
The trial court dismissed the application on 16 April 2025, holding that it had been filed after the plaintiff's evidence had concluded and that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit.
Court's Observations
Justice Ravi Cheemalapati examined the record and referred to the settled principles governing amendment of pleadings under the Civil Procedure Code. The Court noted that amendments should ordinarily be allowed if they help resolve the real controversy between the parties and do not cause injustice that cannot be compensated.
Rejecting the trial court's reasoning, the bench observed,
"Amending the name of the plaintiff in the cause title and amending the schedule in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property... does not change the nature of the suit and ultimately the suit will be for partition only."
The Court also took note of the plaintiff's explanation that the mistake in her name was merely typographical and that the correction in the property extent would not alter the fundamental claim for partition. It found that the proposed amendments would neither introduce a new cause of action nor prejudice the defendants.
Decision
Allowing the revision petition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the trial court's order dated 16 April 2025.
The Court allowed I.A. No. 457 of 2025, permitting the requested amendments in the plaint. No order as to costs was passed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were directed to stand closed.
Case Details
Case Title: Sidagam Jatlamma v. Pandaranki Veerababu & Others
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 1515 of 2025
Judge: Justice Ravi Cheemalapati
Decision Date: 13 March 2026
