Subscribe

Areas of law › Civil

Civil Procedure & Limitation

3 judgments

Telangana High Court ·18 Sep 2026 ·Civil Law

Telangana HC allows amendment of a suit property's boundary description, saying it adds no new cause of action

The question: Can the boundary description of the suit property be amended under Order VI Rule 17 CPC?

A plaintiff in a pending title suit before the Junior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda asked to correct the southern boundary of the suit property from 'Road leads to Adavidevulapally to Chityala' to 'Flood Flow Canal and Road'. The trial court refused. The High Court set that order aside in a civil revision petition and allowed the amendment.

Allowed CRP/2422/2026
AP High Court ·25 Sep 2026 ·Civil Law

AP High Court: Plaint cannot be struck out as time-barred without trial where an insolvency petition may acknowledge the debt

The question: Can mention of a creditor and the amount due in the debtor's insolvency petition amount to an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act?

A lender sued to recover Rs 4 lakh on a 2021 promissory note. The trial court at Jammalamadugu rejected the plaint as time-barred, because the debtor's later insolvency petition listing the lender as a creditor was, it said, only an admission and not an acknowledgment that extends limitation. The High Court set that order aside and sent the case back.

Disposed of CRP/2609/2026
AP High Court ·25 Sep 2026 ·Civil Law

AP High Court: Judgment debtors who signed a Lok Adalat award cannot reopen its pecuniary jurisdiction at the execution stage

The question: Can a party who took part in Permanent Lok Adalat proceedings and signed the award later object to its pecuniary jurisdiction in execution?

Judgment debtors opposed execution of a 2010 Permanent Lok Adalat award of Rs 50 lakh, arguing that the Lok Adalat had no power to pass an award above Rs 10 lakh, so it was a nullity that could be challenged in execution. The trial court refused to dismiss the execution petition at that stage. The High Court upheld that order.

Dismissed CRP/1473/2026