Amendment To Correct Party Name, Property Value In Partition Suit Permissible After Trial Starts If Nature Of Suit Unchanged: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an amendment application seeking to correct the plaintiff's name and the extent of a property in a partition suit cannot be refused merely because it is sought after commencement of trial, so long as it does not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the opposite party. [2026LiveLaw (AP) 142]

In doing so, the Court allowed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and permitted amendment of the plaintiff's name in the cause title and correction of the extent of one of the suit schedule properties.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:

"In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that, amending the name of the plaintiff in the cause title and amending the schedule in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property (A Schedule property) as Ac.0.03 cents in place of 1100 Sq.yards or Sq.mtrs, does not change the nature of the suit and ultimately the suit will be for partition only. The court below, without observing the same, has erroneously dismissed the application, as such, the same has to be set aside. Therefore, this court is inclined to allow the revision."

The petitioner-plaintiff had instituted a partition suit. During the pendency of the suit, she filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to correct her name in the cause title by removing an extra alphabet added due to a typographical error and to amend the extent of the plaint schedule property from 1100 square yards/square metres to Ac.0.03 cents.

The trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the plaintiff had been negligent in not seeking the amendment earlier and that the application had been filed after completion of the plaintiff's evidence when the matter was at the stage of the defendants' evidence. It further held that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the correction was only to rectify a typographical mistake in her name and the extent of the property. She argued that boundaries prevail over extents, the proposed amendment would not alter the nature of the partition suit, and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants.

The respondents opposed the plea, submitting that once the trial had commenced, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate due diligence for seeking amendment at such a belated stage, which she had failed to do. They argued that the trial Court had rightly rejected the application.

The High Court reiterated that amendments should ordinarily be allowed if they are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties and do not cause injustice or irreparable prejudice to the opposite side.

It further observed that although due diligence is a mandatory requirement for amendments sought after commencement of trial, such amendments may still be permitted where they do not alter the cause of action, change the nature of the suit, or prejudice the other side.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the proposed corrections neither altered the nature of the partition suit nor prejudiced the defendants. It therefore concluded that the trial Court had erred in rejecting the amendment application.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the trial Court's order, and allowed the amendment application.

Case Title: Sidagam Jatlamma v. Pandaranki Veerababu & Ors.

Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 1515 of 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: A.K. Kishore Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: L.J. Veera Reddy

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026LiveLaw (AP) 142