Telangana High Court
Kankanala Shyam Sunder vs Moluguri Venkateswarlu on 22 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4349 of 2025
Between:
Kankanala Shyam Sunder
..... Petitioner
And
Moluguri Venkateswarlu
& others
..... Respondents
Date of Judgment Pronounced: 22-04-2026
Submitted for Approval:
The Hon'ble Sri Justice NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes
may be allowed to see the judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals yes
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see
the fair copy of judgment No
_____________________________
(NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J)
2
* The Hon'ble Sri Justice NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4349 OF 2025
% Dated 22.04.2026
Between:
Kankanala Shyam Sunder
..... Petitioner
And
Moluguri Venkateswarlu
& others
..... Respondents
! Counsel for petitioner : Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar
^ Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri Srikanth Hariharan
Counsel for Respondents 2 to 14: Sri S. Rama Mohana Rao.
<GIST:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases cited:
(2009) 10 SCC 84
(2022) SCC On line SC 1128
(2024) 3 SCC 705
2024 INSC 726
(2012) 11 SCC 341
(2019) 15 SCC 628
(2004) 6 SCC 415
(2006) 13 SCC 481
2017 Supreme (Cal) 916
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4349 OF 2025
22.04.2026
Between:
Kankanala Shyam Sunder
..... Petitioner
And
Moluguri Venkateswarlu & others
..... Respondents
O R D E R:
This Revision is filed by Petitioner - Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.147 of 2019, assailing the order dated 01.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial in I.A. No.161 of 2024, whereby the Trial Court allowed the amendment petition filed by Respondent No.1/Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC'), permitting Plaintiff to amend the plaint as prayed for.
2. The essential facts, briefly stated, are that Respondent No.1 - plaintiff instituted O.S. No.147 of 2019 against Petitioner and other Defendants, seeking a declaration 4 that Plaintiff is a co-owner entitled to 1/4th share in Schedule 'A' to 'C' properties as properties of the partnership concern "M/s Matrusri Infra", cancellation of certain sale documents and agreements of sale-cum-GPAs executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of third parties, and consequential injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties.
3. The case of Respondent No. 1 - Plaintiff before the Trial Court, as set out in the plaint is that, Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 formed a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Matrusri Infra vide a deed of partnership dated 26.12.2011, registered as Firm No.24 of 2012 with the Registrar of Firms. The firm was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of lands, plots, and buildings in real estate. The partnership was a partnership-at-will. Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were the working partners. Plaintiff alleged that the landed properties of the firm were purchased from partnership funds, mainly contributed by Plaintiff, Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.4. It was alleged that Defendant No.1 mismanaged the affairs of the firm, failed to co-operate, got certain partnership properties mutated in his individual name in collusion with revenue authorities, and alienated portions of partnership properties to his family members and associates without the 5 consent of other partners. On 30.08.2019, a dissolution notice was issued by Plaintiff along with Defendants 3 and 4, calling upon Defendant No.1 to render accounts, while intimating that the partnership firm stood dissolved immediately upon receipt of the said notice. The suit was instituted on 04.12.2019.
4. The case of Petitioner - Defendant No.1 before the Trial Court, as set out in the written statement is that, Petitioner - Defendant No. 1 denied the material averments of the plaint, contending inter alia that the suit schedule properties are not partnership properties but individual properties purchased by the respective persons in their own right. He contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the partnership firm as a party. He further contended that Plaintiff is estopped from claiming the reliefs sought. He submitted that the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.5 had jointly purchased the properties covered under Schedule 'A' and that Plaintiff had himself expressed his intention to sell his undivided share in the above properties. He asserted that Plaintiff executed an Agreement of Sale dated 06.02.2014 in favour of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.5 for valuable sale consideration and delivered possession. He denied that the 6 properties were purchased from partnership funds or on behalf of the partnership business.
5. When the suit stood posted for hearing on framing of issues, Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff filed I.A. No.161 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking leave to amend the plaint. The proposed amendments sought to: (i) add paras 8-A, 8-B, 9-A, and 9-B to introduce additional facts relating to specific land ventures of the partnership firm, including the involvement of certain associates; (ii) add paras 27-A and 27-B(i) and (ii) relating to valuation and court fee for the additional reliefs; (iii) introduce two new reliefs, namely: Relief A(i) dissolution of the registered partnership firm No.24/2012 by decree of court, and relief A(ii) a direction for taking of accounts of the firm and distribution of shares to the partners; (iv) to declare eleven additional sale documents executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of his family members and associates as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff and Mathrusri Infra Firm (add B-2(f)); and (v) amend the Schedule-A property description.
6. The grounds urged in support of the amendment petition were that the original suit was filed urgently in 2019 as the 1st Defendant had collusively obtained mutation of partnership lands and was attempting to alienate the same 7 hurriedly, leaving Plaintiff without access to complete details at the time of institution. During the pendency of the suit, several additional facts emerged, including through the averments made by the 1st Defendant in Writ Petitions No.6952 and 7345 of 2020 filed by the LRs. of Defendant No.5 before this Court, revealing further unauthorized transactions by the 1st defendant behind the back of the other partners. It was submitted that the 1st Defendant had, without the knowledge or consent of other partners, unilaterally executed and registered eleven sale deeds and a GPA-cum-Agreement of Sale between 2018 and 2019, alienating partnership plot properties in favour of his own family members and associates, which documents were collusive, void, and not binding on the Plaintiff and the firm. It was further stated, the partnership firm M/s Mathrusri Infra was inadvertently omitted from being arrayed as a party defendant, and that certain associates, namely Sri Damodar Lal in Vempally Inside Venture and Sri Jangam Ramakrishna and Sri Banda Sampath Reddy in Schedule C venture, had entitlements in the final accounts of the firm and were required to be added as necessary parties. It was also submitted that in respect of Dambar Venture (Schedule A), an Agreement of Sale dated 22-08-2014 and an Oppanda Patram dated 27-08-2014 were 8 executed inter se the partners, pursuant to which the suit claim was confined to Acs.3-32 Gts., necessitating correction of the Schedule 'A' description, and that the Godowns Venture involving 14 acres in Gramilla Shivar was also required to be brought into the firm's accounts by way of amendment. It was contended that the amendments did not introduce any new or inconsistent cause of action, but were necessary to bring all material facts arising from the same partnership transactions on record, to enable complete adjudication of all disputes in one proceeding, without causing any prejudice to the defendants.
7. Petitioner - Defendant No.1 filed counter opposing the amendments on the following principal grounds: (a) the reliefs of dissolution and rendition of accounts are barred by limitation under Article 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the dissolution notice was dated 30.08.2019 and the three-year period expired on 30.08.2022; (b) Plaintiff did not obtain leave under Order II Rule 2 CPC at the time of filing the original suit, reserving his right to seek further reliefs; and (c) amendment is premature as the proposed amendment sought to be incorporated in the plaint refers to the pleadings against proposed Respondents 15 to 26 without them being impleaded. 9
8. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 01.11.2025, allowed I.A. No. 161 of 2024 and permitted Plaintiff to carry out the amendments and file a neat copy of the plaint. The Trial Court observed that suit was filed for declaration of rights in the partnership firm, for injunction and for cancellation of documents. The Order records that Plaintiff stated he came to know of additional documents executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of his family members and friends after filing the suit. The trial Court held that if the amendment is allowed, Plaintiff can bring additional facts enabling the Court to know the complete facts for proper adjudication. It concluded that for complete and effective disposal of the matter, it is just and necessary to permit Petitioner to amend the proposed pleadings in the plaint by way of amendment, and that by adding the proposed pleadings, the nature of the suit will not be changed.
9. It is pertinent to note that Trial Court did not frame any specific point for consideration regarding whether the proposed reliefs of dissolution and rendition of accounts were barred by limitation, nor did it address the issue as to whether the amendments introduce an entirely new cause of action, 10 which is sine qua non for deciding an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.
10. Learned counsel for Petitioner Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar submits that impugned order is patently illegal and contrary to the settled principles governing amendment of pleadings. He submitted that the proposed amendments seeking dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts introduce an entirely new cause of action and fundamentally alter the character of the suit from one of declaration and injunction to a suit for dissolution and accounts. He contended that the dissolution notice was issued on 30.08.2019 and limitation for filing a suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts under Article 5 of the Limitation Act expired on 30.08.2022, whereas the amendment petition was filed only in 2024. He contended that allowing such an amendment would divest Petitioner of a valuable accrued right of limitation; no explanation was furnished by the Plaintiff for the delay and that the Trial Court mechanically allowed the petition without addressing the issues of limitation and change of cause of action.
10.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his submissions: 11
In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v.
Narayanaswamy and Sons 1, in para 67, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down six guiding factors for consideration of amendment applications, including that as a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of the application, and that the Court must examine whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case.
In Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2, in para 70, the Hon'ble Supreme Court formulated comprehensive guidelines on amendment of pleadings, including that an amendment must be disallowed where it changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action so as to set up an entirely new case foreign to the case set up in the plaint, and that a prayer for amendment is generally to be refused where by the amendment a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced divesting the other side of a valuable accrued right.
1
(2009) 10 SCC 84 2 (2022) SCC On Line SC 1128 12 In Basavaraj v. Indira 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the key factors to be considered while dealing with an application for amendment are whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other side, whether it fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case, and whether a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred on the date of filing the application. The Court observed that any right accrued to the opposite party cannot be taken away on account of delay in filing the application. The Court further held that where the limitation for challenging a decree had expired and the relief sought by way of amendment was time-barred, such amendment cannot be allowed, and that what cannot be done directly, cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. (paras 14, 15 and 16) In Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to the comprehensive guidelines laid down in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), held that while the overarching rule is that a liberal approach is 3 (2024) 3 SCC 705 4 2024 INSC 726 13 to be adopted, the amendment should be disallowed where it raises a time-barred claim resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right, or where the amendment completely changes the nature of the suit, or where the prayer for amendment is mala fide. (paras 11.2(iii) and 14)
11. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff Sri Srikanth Hariharan submitted that the proposed amendments are necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute between the partners. He submitted that the original plaint already contained all the averments pertaining to the partnership firm, its formation, the contributions made, the disputes between the partners, and the alienations made by Defendant No.1. The proposed amendments merely seek to bring additional facts that came to light after the filing of the suit regarding further alienations by Defendant No.1. He further submitted that the relief of dissolution and rendition of accounts is consequential and ancillary to the declaration already sought, that all partners are already parties to the suit, and that the partnership firm was sought to be added only as a formal party to avoid technical objections. He relied on the liberal approach mandated by the 14 Supreme Court in allowing pre-trial amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
11.1. Learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his submissions:
In Abdul Rehman and Others v. Mohd. Ruldu 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties should be allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the suit. The Court further observed that a change in the nature of relief claimed should not be considered as a change in the nature of suit and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interests of doing full and complete justice between the parties. (paras 7, 8, 10 and 15) In Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an inadvertent mistake in the plaint cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from a reading of the plaint. The Court observed that the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties, and that amendment in the 5 (2012) 11 SCC 341 6 (2019) 15 SCC 628 15 pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. (paras 9 and 10) In Pankaja and Another v. Yellappa (Dead) by Legal Representatives 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation, the same should be allowed. (paras 12 to 14 and 18).
In Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar v. Yeshwant Govind Kamerkar 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a dispute concerning partnership dissolution and tenancy rights, held that the cause of action for a suit does not perish with the execution of a deed of dissolution. The Court observed that the rights and liabilities of the partners in respect of the partnership property would be discharged only when the firm is finally wound up and the properties of the firm are distributed. (paras 36, 37 and 38) 7 (2004) 6 SCC 415 8 (2006) 13 SCC 481 16 In Rajendra Bajoria and Others v. Sudhir Jalan 9, the Calcutta High Court, while dealing with a suit for dissolution of a partnership firm and distribution of assets, held that a suit for taking the accounts of a partnership would not be barred unless the defendant makes out that there has been a dissolution of the partnership more than three years prior to the institution of the suit. The Court held that so long as the partnership continues, Article 5 of the Limitation Act cannot apply. (paras 40, 41, 64 and 65)
12. Heard Sri S. Rama Mohana Rao, learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 14.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and having carefully perused the material on record, including the original plaint, the written statement, the amendment petition, the counter thereto, and the impugned order, the following points arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the proposed amendments introduce a new cause of action and fundamentally change the nature of the suit?
(ii) Whether the proposed reliefs of dissolution and rendition of accounts are barred by limitation?
9
2017 Supreme (Cal) 916 17
(iii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the amendment petition in its entirety?
14. Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The proviso thereto stipulates that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Order VI Rule 17 CPC is extracted hereunder:
"Order VI Rule 17. Amendment of pleadings.
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."18
15. On a careful examination of the original plaint and the proposed amendments, this Court finds it necessary to categorize the amendments sought into two distinct classes:
Class 1-Amendments that are factual and supplementary in nature: The proposed insertion of paras 8-A, 8-B, 9-A, and 9-B, which introduce additional factual details regarding specific land ventures (Vempally Inside Venture, Dambar Venture, Godowns Venture) and involvement of certain associates (Damodar Lal, Jangam Ramakrishna, Banda Sampath Reddy); the proposed cancellation of eleven additional sale documents executed by Defendant No.1 after the filing of the suit; and the amendment of the Schedule-A property description these are in the nature of supplementary pleadings that elaborate upon the existing cause of action already pleaded in the original plaint. These do not introduce a new or independent cause of action but merely furnish additional particulars and seek cancellation of further documents that came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff after the suit was filed.
Class II Amendments that introduce new reliefs of dissolution and rendition of accounts: The proposed Relief A(i) seeking dissolution of the registered partnership firm No.24/2012 by decree of court, and Relief A(ii) seeking a 19 direction for taking of accounts and distribution of the same to the partners, along with the consequential paras 27-B(i) and 27- B(ii), constitute an entirely different category. These reliefs are substantive in nature. A suit for dissolution of a partnership firm and for rendition of accounts is a distinct suit governed by specific provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Sections 44 and 69) and is subject to a specific period of limitation under Article 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
16. The original suit was one for declaration (that the Plaintiff is a co-owner entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties as partnership properties), cancellation of certain documents, and injunction. The introduction of reliefs for dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts fundamentally alters the character of the suit. A suit for declaration of co- ownership rights in partnership properties is conceptually and juridically distinct from a suit for dissolution of a partnership firm and rendition of accounts. While the former involves adjudication of title and ownership, the latter involves winding up of the partnership and settlement of accounts between partners, which is governed by an entirely different legal framework under the Indian Partnership Act.
20
17. Article 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes a period of three years for a suit for dissolution of partnership or for accounts of a dissolved partnership, calculated from the date of dissolution. Reference may be made to S. Shivraj Reddy v. Raghuraj Reddy which is directly on point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case specifically dealt with the limitation applicable to suits for dissolution and rendition of accounts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that Section 3 of the Limitation Act is absolute and mandatory, and if a suit is barred by time, the Court is duty-bound to dismiss it even at the appellate stage, regardless of whether the issue of limitation was raised as a defence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the period of limitation for filing a suit for rendition of accounts is three years from the date of dissolution.
18. It is an admitted and undisputed fact, evident from the pleadings of both parties that Plaintiff along with Defendants 3 and 4 got issued a dissolution notice dated 30.08.2019 to Defendant No.1, intimating that the partnership firm M/s. Matrusri Infra stood dissolved immediately upon receipt of the said notice. The dissolution, on the Plaintiff's own case, took effect on or about 30.08.2019. Consequently, the 21 limitation for filing a suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts expired on 30.08.2022. The amendment petition (I.A. No.161 of 2024) was filed only in June 2024, nearly two years after the expiry of the limitation period.
19. This Court finds merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The decision in Basavaraj v. Indira (supra) is directly on point and the facts of the present case are on all fours with the principle laid down therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court refused the amendment seeking declaration of a compromise decree as null and void, where the application was filed five years and three months after the passing of the compromise decree, holding that limitation for challenging the decree was three years and the relief sought by way of amendment was therefore time-barred. The Court observed that with the passage of time, a right had accrued in favour of the opposite party which could not be taken away, and applied the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. In the present case, the dissolution notice was issued on 30.08.2019, and the limitation for filing a suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts under Article 5 of the Limitation Act expired on 30.08.2022; the amendment petition was, however, filed in June 22 2024, nearly two years after the expiry of limitation. A fresh suit for dissolution and accounts, if filed on the date of the amendment petition, would be hopelessly barred, and allowing the amendment would therefore divest the Petitioner of a valuable accrued right of limitation.
20. Similarly, the decision in Dinesh Goyal (supra) reinforces the position that while a liberal approach is the general rule, an amendment must be disallowed where it completely changes the nature of the suit or introduces a time- barred claim. In the present case, the proposed reliefs of dissolution and rendition of accounts fundamentally alter the suit from one of declaration and injunction to one involving the winding up of a partnership, and are barred by limitation.
21. This Court has duly considered the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1. While the principles laid down therein are well-settled, the application of those principles to the facts of the present case leads to a different conclusion.
(a) The decision in Abdul Rehman (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the Supreme Court allowed the amendment because the factual matrix for the relief sought by way of amendment was already set out in the 23 un-amended plaint, and amendment did not change the basic nature of the suit. In the present case, however, the proposed reliefs of dissolution and rendition of accounts are not merely additional reliefs based on existing facts; they constitute an entirely new cause of action governed by a distinct statutory framework under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and are subject to a specific period of limitation under Article 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
(b) The decision in Varun Pahwa (supra) dealt with a case of inadvertent mistake in the description of the plaintiff in the memo of parties, which was apparent from the reading of the plaint itself. That decision has no application to the present case, where the Respondent No.1 is seeking to introduce substantive reliefs of dissolution and rendition of accounts, which are not the result of any clerical error or inadvertence but constitute a conscious choice to expand the scope of the suit.
(c) The decision in Pankaja (supra) itself acknowledges that the question of limitation is a relevant factor while considering an amendment application. In that case, the Supreme Court allowed the amendment because it found that there was an arguable question as to whether the limitation fell under Entry 58 or Entries 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, and 24 remitted the issue to the Trial Court for decision. In the present case, there is no such ambiguity. The limitation under Article 5 of the Limitation Act for a suit for dissolution and rendition of accounts is clearly three years from the date of dissolution, and the dissolution notice having been issued on 30.08.2019, the limitation expired on 30.08.2022. The amendment was filed only in June 2024, nearly two years after the expiry of limitation.
(d) As regards the decisions in Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar (supra) and Rajendra Bajoria (supra), relied upon by Respondent No. I to contend that the cause of action for dissolution continues as long as the partnership business is carried on, these decisions are distinguishable. In Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar, the Supreme Court was dealing with a suit filed within the limitation period, where the question was whether the tenancy right formed part of the assets of the partnership. In Rajendra Bajoria, the Calcutta High Court was dealing with a suit for dissolution of a firm whose business was admittedly still continuing. In the present case, Plaintiff himself issued a dissolution notice dated 30.08.2019 intimating that the partnership firm stood dissolved immediately upon receipt of the notice. Plaintiff cannot now contend that the partnership is still 25 subsisting when he himself has asserted its dissolution. A party cannot approbate and reprobate.
21. The argument of Respondent No.1 that the reliefs of dissolution and rendition of accounts are merely 'consequential' to the declaration already sought does not hold water. A relief of dissolution of a partnership firm is an independent and substantive relief governed by the Indian Partnership Act. It is not a consequential relief flowing from a declaration of co- ownership. Plaintiff, having chosen to file a suit only for declaration, cancellation, and injunction, cannot now be permitted to introduce a time-barred cause of action under the guise of amendment. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
22. The impugned order of the learned trial Court suffers from non-application of mind to the critical issues raised by the Defendant No.1. The trial Court, in a single paragraph of reasoning, disposed of all the objections by merely stating that the amendment would enable the Court to know the complete facts for proper adjudication and that the nature of the suit would not change. The trial Court completely failed to address the specific objection regarding limitation under Article 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court's observation that "by adding the 26 proposed pleadings, the nature of the suit will not be changed"
is erroneous, as the introduction of reliefs for dissolution and rendition of accounts fundamentally transforms the suit from one of declaration and injunction to one involving the winding up of a partnership firm and settlement of accounts.
23. However, this Court is mindful that the liberal approach mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters of pre-trial amendment of pleadings must also be given due regard. The amendments falling under Class-I (additional factual averments regarding partnership ventures, cancellation of additional documents that came to light after filing of the suit, amendment of Schedule-A property description, and arraying the partnership firm as a party) are well within the permissible scope of amendment. These amendments relate to the same cause of action, do not introduce any time-barred claim, and are necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the controversy. The proposed addition of the partnership firm as Defendant No.15 is in the nature of curing a formal defect, as all the partners are already parties to the suit.
24. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order, insofar as it allows the amendment in its entirety without distinguishing 27 between the permissible and impermissible amendments, suffers from an error of law and non-application of mind.
25. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 01.11.2025 in I.A. No.161 of 2024 in O.S. No.147 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge. Mancherial, is hereby modified as follows:
(a) The amendments pertaining to insertion of paras 8-
A, 8-B, 9-A, and 9-B (additional factual averments regarding Vempally Inside Venture, Dambar Venture, Godowns Venture, and involvement of associates), the amendment of Schedule-A property description, addition of para 27-A (valuation and court fee for cancellation of the eleven additional documents). The proposed cancellation of eleven additional sale documents (g) to
(q) listed in the proposed amended prayer, and arraying partnership firm M/s Matrusri Infra as Defendant No.15, are UPHELD and ALLOWED. These amendments are supplementary in nature, relate to the same cause of action, do not introduce any time-barred claim, and are necessary for the complete and effective adjudication of the controversy.
(b) The amendments pertaining to introduction of Relief A(i) (dissolution of the registered partnership firm No.24/2012 by decree of court), Relief A(ii) (direction for taking 28 of accounts of the firm and distribution of the same to the partners), para 27-B(i) (valuation and court fee for dissolution), and para 27-B(ii) (consequential relief of accounts), are SET ASIDE and DISALLOWED. These amendments seek to introduce substantive reliefs of dissolution and rendition of accounts which constitute an entirely new cause of action, fundamentally alter the nature of the suit, and are hopelessly barred by limitation under Article 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation having expired on 30.08.2022. Allowing these amendments would divest the Petitioner of a valuable accrued right of limitation.
25.1. Since it is stated before this Court that amendments were carried out and a neat copy of the plaint has already been filed, the same not being in tune with the order passed in this Revision is hereby expunged. Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff is directed to carry out and file the neat copy of the amended plaint, incorporating only the amendments permitted under clause (a) above, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner/Defendant No.1 and other Defendants shall be entitled to file additional written statement(s), if any, in response to the permitted amendments within four weeks thereafter.
2925.2. The Trial Court shall thereafter, proceed with the suit expeditiously keeping in view the fact that the suit has been pending since 2019. No costs.
26. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 22nd April 2026 ksld 30