APHC010227442023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3333]

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1358, 1357 and

1359 of 2023

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1358/2023

Between:

1. GUNDLA GOVINDA RAJULU, S/O LATE

PATTABHIRAMAIAH NAIDU, HINDU, AGED 65 YEARS,

OCC. BUSINESS, R/O VARADHA NA GAR, GUDUR TOWN,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

2. GUNDLA KODANDAPANI,, S/O LATE PATTABHIRAMAIAH

NAIDU, HINDU. AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O

D.NO.8/151, NARAYANAMMA STREET. GUDUR TOWN,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. PEDDISETTY SRINIVAS A KUMAR, S/O JITHENDRANATH

BABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

2. PEDDISETTY GOVINDA RAJA PANKAJ MALLICK, S/O

JITHENDRANATH BABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

R/O D.NO.25/2/834, REVENUE COLONY, SHIROMANI

NAGAR, NELLORE TOWN. SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

3. PEDDISETTY SWAROOPA RANI, D/O LATE PEDDISETTY

MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

OCC. BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR, NEAR KASTHURI

DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

4. PEDDISETTY BANSALI BABU, S/O LATE PEDDISETTY

MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HIND U, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

Reserved on 19.12.2025

Pronounced on 08.01.2026

Uploaded on 08.01.2026

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

2

OCC. BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR, NEAR KASTHURI

DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR NEILORE DISTRICT.

5. PEDDISETTY VISHNUPRIYA RANI, D/O LATE PEDDISETTY

MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

OCC. BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR, NEAR K ASTHURI

DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

6. PEDDISETTY GOVINDA RAJA RAM PANKAJ MALLICK, S/O

LATE PEDDISETTY MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED

ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR,

NEAR KASTHURI DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR

NELLORE DISTRICT.

7. MANCHALA DEVIKA RANI, W/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O

TADEPALLIGUDEM TOWN, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

8. GADAMSETTY RATHNAIAH, S/O LATE VENKATA

SUBBAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D.NO.13/5,

KUMMARI VEEDHI, EAST GUDUR TOWN, GUDUR

MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying

that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High

Court may be pleased topleased to allow this Civil Revision Petition

by setting aside the order dated.10.3.2023 passed in

I.A.No.373/2022 in O.S.No.227/2014 on the file of the Court of the

VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District to secure

the ends of justice and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all

proceedings in 0.S.No.227/2014 on the file of the Court of the VII

Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District pending

finalization of the above Civil Revision Petition to secure the ends of

justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. K A NARASIMHAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

3

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1357/2023

Between:

1. GUNDLA GOVINDA RAJULU, S/O LATE

PATTABHIRAMAIAH NAIDU, HINDU, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC

BUSINESS, R/O VARADHA NAGAR, GUDUR TOWN, SPSR

NELLORE DISTRICT.

2. GUNDLA KODANDAPANI, S/O LATE PATTABHIRAMAIAH

NAIDU, HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O

D.NO.8/151, NARAYANAMMA STREET, GUDUR TOWN,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. PEDDISETTY SRINIVASA KUMAR, S/O JITHENDRANATH

BABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

2. PEDDISETTY GOVINDA RAJA PANKAJ MALLICK, S/O

JITHENDRANATH BABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

R/O D.NO.25/2/834, REVENUE COLONY, SHIROMANI

NAGAR, NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

3. PEDDISETTY SWAROOPA RANI, D/O LATE PEDDISETTY

MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

OCC BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR, NEAR KASTHURI

DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

4. PEDDISETTY BANSALI BABU, S/O LATE PEDDISETTY

MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

OCC BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR, NEAR KASTHURI

DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

5. PEDDISETTY VISHNUPRIYA RANI, D/O LATE PEDDISETTY

MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

OCC BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR, NEAR KASTHURI

DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

6. PEDDISETTY GOVINDA RAJA RAM PANKAJ MALLICK, S/O

LATE PEDDISETTY MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED

ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR,

NEAR KASTHURI DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR

NELLORE DISTRICT.

7. MANCHALA DEVIKA RANI, W/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC DOCTOR, R/O

TADEPALLIGUDEM TOWN, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

4

8. GADAMSETTY PADMAVATHI, W/O RATNAIAH, HINDU,

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.13/5, KUMMARI

VEEDHI, EAST GUDUR TOWN, GUDUR MANDAL, SPSR

NELLORE DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying

that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High

Court may be pleased topleased to allow this Civil Revision Petition

by setting aside the order dated.10.3.2023 passed in

I.A.No.372/2022 in 0.S.No.264/2014 on the file of the Court of the

VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District to secure

the ends of justice and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all

proceedings in &V 0.S.No.264/2014 on the file of the Court of the

VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District pending

finalization of the above Civil Revision Petition to secure the ends of

justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. K A NARASIMHAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. E V V S RAVI KUMAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1359/2023

Between:

1. GUNDLA GOVINDA RAJULU, S/O LATE

PATTABHIRAMAIAH NAIDU, HINDU, AG ED 65 YEARS,

OCC. BUSINESS, R/O VARADHA NAGAR, GUDUR TOWN,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

2. GUNDLA KODANDAPANI,, S/O LATE PATTABHIRAMAIAH

NAIDU, HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O

D.NO.8/151, NARAYANAMMA STREET, GUDUR TOWN,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

5

1. PEDDISETTY SRINIVASA KUMAR, S/O JITHENDRANATH

BABU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

2. PEDDISOTTY GOVINDA RAJA PANKAJ MALLICK, S/O

JITHENDRANATH BABU, HINDU.AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

R/O D.NO.25/2/834, REVENUE COLONY, SHIROMANI

NAGAR, NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

3. PEDDISETTY SWAROOPA RANI, D/O LATE PEDDISETTY

MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

OCC. BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR, NEAR KASTHURI

DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

4. PEDDISETTY BANSALI BABU, S /O LATE PEDDISETTY

MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

OCC. BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR, NEAR KASTHURI

DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

5. PEDDISETTY VISHNUPRIYA RANI, D/O LATE PEDDISETTY

MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEAR S,

OCC. BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR, NEAR KASTHURI

DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

6. PEDDISETTY GOVINDA RAJA RAM PANKAJ MALLICK, S/O

LATE PEDDISETTY MALLIKARJUNA RAO, HINDU, AGED

ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O SHANTHINAGAR,

NEAR KASTHUR I DEVI SCHOOL, NELLORE, SPSR

NELLORE DISTRICT.

7. MANCHALA DEVIKA RANI, W/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,

HINDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O

TADEPALLIGUDEM TOWN, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

8. SOMISETTY JAYARAM PAWAN KUMAR, S/O

RAMASUBBAIAH, AGED 40 YEARS, TYAGARAJA VEEDHI,

GUDUR TOWN, GUDUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE

DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying

that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High

Court may be pleased topleased to allow this Civil Revision Petition

by setting aside the order dated.10.3.2023 passed in I.A.No.3/2022

in O.S.No.201/2014 on the file of the Court of the VIl Additional

District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District to secure the ends of

justice and to pass

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

6

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all

proceedings in O.S.No.201/2014 on the file of the Court of the VII th

Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District pending

finalization of the above Civil Revision Petition to secure the ends of

justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. K A NARASIMHAM

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

7

COMMON ORDER:

Civil Revision Petition No.1358 of 2023 is filed by the

petitioners-plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

challenging the order dated 10.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.373 of

2022 in O.S.No.227 of 2014 by the VII Additional District Judge,

Gudur, whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory

application filed Under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure

(for short ―C.P.C.‖) to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the

plaint.

2) Civil Revision Petition No.1357 of 2023 is filed by the

petitioners-plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

challenging the order dated 10.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.372 of

2022 in O.S.No.264 of 2014 by the VII Additional District Judge,

Gudur, whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory

application filed Under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure

(for short ―C.P.C.‖) to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the

plaint.

3) Civil Revision Petition No.1359 of 2023 is filed by the

petitioners-plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

challenging the order dated 10.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.03 of 2022

in O.S.No.201 of 2014 by the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur,

whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the said interlocutory application

filed Under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short

―C.P.C.‖) to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint.

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

8

4) Since the petitioners and the respondents in both the revision

petitions are one and the same and the issue involved in these

revisions is identical, I find that it is appropriate to decide these

revision petitions by way of a common order by taking

C.R.P.No.1358 of 2023 as lead petition.

5) It is the case of the petitioners that One G.Kodandapani and

G.Janakamma are their grandparents. Their grandfather

Kodandapani was the owner of 152 Ankanams and their

grandmother G.Janakamma was the owner of 120 Ankanams and it

is her Stridhana property. However, their grandparents blessed with

two sons and four daughters. As per the Hindu law, the said 6

persons are entitled to 1/6

th

share each in the petitioners

grandmother’s property of 120 Ankanams. As far as their ancestral

property of 152 Ankanams which was in the possession of their

grandfather initially, he along with his two sons are entitled to 1/3

rd

share each is to be partitioned amongst six children. After the death

of the grandparents of the petitioners, their father who is the eldest

son used to look after the affairs of the entire family.

6) As things stood thus, one of the daughters filed suit

O.S.No.128 of 1975 seeking partition for her 1/6

th

share. The said

suit was finally decreed allotting 1/6

th

share to her. Out of the

remaining 5 members, one son and two daughters die d.

Accordingly, father of the petitioners and one daughter are became

absolute owners of the said property. Out of them, daughter after

marriage blessed with 8 children. As she is living separately in her

matrimonial home, she is not at all in possession and enjoyment of

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

9

the property. Therefore, the petitioners – plaintiffs are in possession

of the property. The petitioners have leased out the property to one

Pokala Sadasivaiah and used to collect rents and paying taxes.

When respondent Nos.3 to 7 raised a dispute with to the property,

the said 3

rd

party Pokala Sadasivaiah filed suit O.S.No.57 of 2003 to

determine the persons entitled to receive the usufruct and to have

possession over the property, in which the petitioners were arrayed

as party defendants.

7) The said inter-pleader suit was decreed holding the

possession and entitlement of the petitioners – plaintiffs to receive

the rents from Pokala sadasivaiah. However, the Court below

granted an injunction in his favour not to evict him forcibly. The said

decree and judgment is a vital document to set the rights of the

parties at rest. However, respondent Nos.3 to 7 while creating 3

rd

party interest sold away certain portions of the property under

various sale deeds as if they are having title and possession of the

said property.

8) At that stage, the petitioners – plaintiffs were constrained to

file suit O.SNo.227 of 2014 seeking cancellation of sale deeds dated

27.11.2009, dated 27.11.2009 (subject matter of C.R.P.No.1357 of

2023), dated 18.01.2009 (subject matter of C.R.P.No.1359 of 2023),

wherein plaintiffs evidence was completed by 2020. After

completion of plaintiffs’ evidence, the petitioners have identified that

the respondents-defendants being ill-advised apart from creating 3

rd

party rights had also could able to make the plaintiff who got filed

the inter-leader suit to become hostile, in order to see the decree

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

10

passed in the said inter-pleader suit unenforceable and un-

executable, got the buildings demolished and went on to execute

the settlement deeds etc.

9) At this stage, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed interlocutory

application Nos.373, 372 and 03 of 2022 respectively under Order

VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint with some

prayers which include the declaration of their title and accrual of the

rights by way of adverse possession while placing reliance on the

decree and judgment in O.S.No.57 of 2003. The said applications

were dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners – plaintiffs filed these three revision petitions.

10) Learned counsel for the revision petitioners – plaintiffs

contended that the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the

suit and the amendment sought for by the petitioners must be

allowed as the same alone determine the real questions in

controversy between the parties and will also avoid multiplicity of the

proceedings. The trial Court should have seen that the rights of the

parties are to be determined as per law and as per their entitlement

and requested to allow the revisions.

11) Learned counsel for the respondents – defendants contended

that the amendment sought for the petitioners-plaintiffs cannot be

allowed as it would change the nature of the suit, and supported the

order of the Court below in all respects and requested this Court to

dismiss the revision petition.

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

11

12) Originally, O.S.No.151 of 2010 was filed by the

petitioners/plaintiffs on 23.08.2010 for cancellation of sale deed

dated 27.11.2009, in which respondent No.8 -defendant No.8 filed

written statement on 11.11.2010 duly stating that he has been in

possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and

denied the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs in the year 2010

itself. Thereafter, the said suit was transferred and renumbered as

O.S.No.227 of 2014. However, the present applications were filed in

the year 2022 i.e. after lapse of 12 years under Order VI Rule 17 of

C.P.C. For better appreciation of the case, it is apposite to extract

Oder VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.

―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.‖

13) It can be understood from the above that Order VI Rule 17

consists of two parts viz., the first part is that the Court may at any

stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend pleadings and

the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the

purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the

parties.

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

12

14) In ―Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh (Civil

Appeal Nos.2811-2813 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.6745-

47/2009)‖ relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:

―Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he

has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks

annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed

is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him.‖

15) The law laid down in the said judgment is not in dispute. In the

said facts of the case, the amendment was sought for amendment

of court fee, but in the present case, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed

petition for amendment of the plaint with new cause of action.

Therefore, the said judgment would not be helpful to the petitioners

to prove their case.

16) In ―G.S.Prakash Vs. Polasa Hanumanlu

1

‖, relied on by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh held as follows:

―On a careful analysis of the judicial precedents referred to

above, it needs to be held that as a general rule, the Courts have

to adopt a liberal approach in considering the applications for

amendment of pleadings, subject to certain exceptions. Without

intending to be exhaustive, but only illustrative, broadly stated,

instances on either side are stated hereunder:

"Instances where amendments have to be allowed:

1

2014 SCC OnLine Hyd 1380

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

13

(a) All pre-trial stage (prior to examination of witnesses)

amendments which do not alter the nature and character of the

suit and substitute or introduce new cause of action;

(b) In cases of pending or post-trial amendments, the

Court must allow the same subject to the applicant, in addition to

satisfy the condition (a) supra, satisfying two other conditions,

viz., (i) that the amendment is necessary for determining the real

questions in controversy and (ii) that despite due diligence, the

applicant could not move the application at an earlier stage;

(c) Where, the proposed amendment will not work injustice

or cause prejudice to the other side;

(d) Where, by the proposed amendment the position of the

other party will be altered, but the same can be compensated by

costs;

(e) Even where the proposed amendment introduces

inconsistency in pleadings, if by the proposed amendment, the

party does not seek to resile from the admissions if any made in

the original pleadings;

(f) Where the proposed amendment relates to a time

barred claim and the Court is satisfied that allowing such

amendment really subserves the cause of justice and avoids

further litigation.

Instances where amendments have to be refused:

(i) Where by the proposed amendment the party seeks to

alter the nature, character and constitution of the suit (mere

inconsistent pleadings may not, in all cases, change the nature

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

14

and character of the suit) or substitute cause of action or

introduce a distinct cause of action;

(ii) where the valuable defence by way of admissions by a

party has accrued to the opposite party and by the proposed

amendment the party intends to resile from such admissions;

(iii) where the position of the other party will be altered by

the proposed amendment and the injury caused to him by such

alteration could not be compensated in costs.

(iv) Where the proposed amendment lacks bonafides and

is far too belated and the party seeking the amendment was not

diligent in approaching the court;

(v) Where a fresh suit, if instituted on the proposed

amendments, will be barred by law;"

17) Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ―Hussain Ahmed

Choudhury Vs. Habibur Rahman(Dead) Through LRs

2

‖ to

contend that the amendment of the plaint can be allowed at any

stage of the proceedings.

18) In the facts of the said case, suit was filed by plaintiff, seeking

declaration, confirmation of possession and mandatory injunction

over suit land, later it was amended to seek recovery of possession

as plaintiff was dispossessed during pendency of suit. The said suit

was decreed in favour of Plaintiff holding that Gift Deed was validly

2

2025 (4) ALT 54

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

15

executed by Plaintiff's grandfather in his favour and Defendants No.

1 to 6 therein had no saleable interest to sell suit land. The law laid

down in the said case is not in dispute. However, the same is not

applicable to the present facts of the case as the petitioners-

plaintiffs herein filed the amendment petition after long lapse of 12

years.

19) In ―Basavaraj Vs. Indira and others

3

‖ relied on by the

learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

held as follows:

―The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides 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.‖

20) In ―Vempati Rama Kotamma Vs. Oruganti Jayaprakash

Reddy

4

‖ relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, this

Court held as follows:

―It is settled law that the Court shall consider pre-trial

amendments liberally. However, post-trial amendments the Court

must exercise its discretion and should see that whether the

amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real

controversy between the parties. If it finds that the parties could

not have raised the issue in spite of due diligence before

commencement of trial and such discretion must be exercised by

applying the judicial mind.‖

3

(2024) 3 SCC 705

4

AIR Online 2022 AP 297

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

16

21) The law laid down in ―Basavaraj Vs. Indira and others‖ and

―Vempati Rama Kotamma Vs. Oruganti Jayaprakash Reddy ‖

(referred supra) is squarely applicable to the present facts of the

case as in the case on hand, the petitioners – plaintiffs sought for

amendment after commencement of trial.

22) Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain

factors have been outlined for the application of

Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court in ―Life

Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.

and Another

5

‖, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners,

after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment

of pleadings, culled out certain principles:

(i) All amendments are to be allowed which are

necessary for determining the real question in controversy

provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other

side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the

word "shall", in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the

Code of Civil Procedure.

(ii) In the following scenario such applications should

be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and

proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties

to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not

result in injustice to the other side.

5

2022 SCC OnLine 1128

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

17

(iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed,

the same should be disallowed if -

(a) By the amendment, the parties seeking

amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission

made by the party which confers a right on the other side.

(b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred

claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a

valuable accrued right (in certain situations)

(c) The amendment completely changes the nature of

the suit;

(d) The prayer for amendment is malafide,

(e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose

a valid defence.

(iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are-

(I) The court should avoid a hyper -technical

approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite

party can be compensated by costs.

(II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is

intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the

plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach.

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

18

(III) The amendment should not change the cause of

action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the

case set up in the plaint.‖

23) In the present case, the petitioners - plaintiffs are seeking

amendment of Plaint, to claim a fresh reliefs (1) "declaration of title",

(2) "recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property" and also

(3) "mandatory injunction directing the respondents/defendants to

remove the illegal and unlawful constructions over the plaint

schedule property". Only respondent No.8 – Defendant No.8

contested in this petition and filed counter denying all the contents

of the petition and contended that he has been in possession and

enjoyment of the plaint 'C' schedule property as on the date of filing

of the Suit O.S.No.227 of 2014 filed in the year 2010 and he has

taken said plea in the written statement filed long back on

11.11.2010 and the petitioners –plaintiffs after long gap of 12 years,

came with a plea of their dispossession and illegal occupation of the

plant schedule property by respondent No.8 – defendant No.8 on

alleged date in the last week of August, 2021. The petitioners -

plaintiffs pleaded that respondent No.8 – defendant No.8 trying to

make construction in hurried manner and respondent No.8 –

defendant No.8 has executed two registered sale deeds dated

18.01.2021 in favour of his son Rajesh and daughter Deepti in

respect of plaint schedule property in the above Suit O.S.No.227of

2014. But the petitioners-plaintiffs have not produced any evidence

either oral or documentary before the court to establish prima facie

that respondent No.8 – defendant No.8 dispossessed them and

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

19

illegal occupied the plant schedule property. There is no material on

record to believe that respondent No.8 – defendant No.8 trespassed

into the plaint schedule property. Respondent No.8 – defendant

No.8 in the year 2010 itself pleaded in his written statement dated

11.11.2010 that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the

plaint schedule property and denied the possession of the

petitioners in the year 2010 itself by filing his written statement. In

fact the main suit is filed against respondent No.8 – defendant No.8

and sought permanent injunction against all the respondents. The

reliefs sought in the main Suit are only for cancellation of registered

sale deed dated 27.11.2009 and for permanent injection as against

the respondents. It can also be observed that if the petitioners –

plaintiffs succeeded in the said suit, automatically the subsequent

sale deeds executed by defendant No.8 would become void. If the

proposed amendment is permitted, it would change the basic cause

of action, structure and nature of the Suit which is not sustainable in

the eye of law.

24) The petitioners-plaintiffs pleaded in the present petition that

respondent No.8 – defendant No.8 trying to make construction in

hurried manner and has executed two registered sale deeds dated

18.01.2021 in favour of the his son Rajesh and daughter Deepti in

respect of plant schedule property, who in fact are not parties to the

suit. The alleged sale deeds dated 18.01.2021 in favour of her son

Rajesh and daughter Deepti of respondent No.8 are not marked by

the petitioners – plaintiffs in the present petition. No third party

affidavits are filed supporting the plea of petitioners/ plaintiffs.

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

20

25) The new cause of action arose for fresh litigation and it can

not be merged with the old pending litigation which started long

back on different cause of action. In the main suit, the evidence of

plaintiffs already completed and chief examination affidavit of D.W.1

is also filed and posted for cross examination of D.W.1. At the fag

end of the Trial in a very old pending suit, the petitioners - plaintiffs,

filed the present petition with a new cause of action and for different

reliefs which makes the Suit very comprehensive and complicated.

If respondent No.8 – defendant No.8 has illegally trespassed into

the entire or part of the plaint schedule property, in the last week of

August, 2021, the only option left for the petitioners – petitioners is

to take separate legal steps to evict respondent No.8 – defendant

No.8 under due process of Law. The new facts should not be

merged with very old existing facts as they would distract the

original issues already framed in the suit.

26) Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, does not permit the amendment

after the Trial is commenced, unless and until the party establishes

that in spite of due diligence, he could not raise the same before

commencement of trial. In the instant case, the petitioners -

plaintiffs, failed to prove that in spite of due diligence they could not

raise, the pleas for proposed amendment before commencement of

the trial. There was an ample opportunity for the petitioners -

plaintiffs after filing of the written statement by respondent No.8 –

defendant No.8 in the year 2010. The petitioners kept silent for

about more than 12 years without seeking any amendment for

declaration and recovery of possession and at the fag end, they

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

21

came with the present petition without showing any prima facie

evidence, to believe that their case is genuine and trust worthy. The

petitioners filed total three suits including above suit, against the

same respondents/defendants. In all three suits, the petitioners –

plaintiffs filed similar petitions without valid reasons and without

prima facie evidence to support their pleas. If the Courts keep on

permitting the parties to file such petitions without valid and

reasonable grounds, undue delay would be caused in disposal of

the cases.

27) Further, the limitation for filing of the suit for recovery of

possession based on title perfected by adverse possession, is 12

years as per Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963. Respondent No.8 –

Defendant No.8 has denied the title and possession of the

petitioners - plaintiffs long back in the year 2010, by way of filing

written statement dated 11.11.2010. The petitioners - plaintiffs in

this case repeatedly pleaded that they perfected title by adverse

possession. Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes timeline

of 12 years, within which an aggrieved person may file suit for

recovery of Immovable property or any interest therein based on

proprietary title. After an uninterrupted 12 years of possession, the

person is said to have perfected his title over the subject property by

way of adverse possession provided that he proves that his

possession is peaceful, open and continuous. Therefore, the

amendment sought in the present petition would definitely disturb

the original issues framed in the suit and divert the basic pleadings

and reliefs. Under the guise of amendment, the petitioners-plaintiffs

VS,J

crps_1358, 1357 and 1359_2023

22

intended to built-up a new case as filing of separate suit is barred by

limitation.

28) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion

that the Trial Court did commit no error warranting interference of

this Court in the order dated 10.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.373 of

2022 in O.S.No.227 of 2014 and the revision is devoid of merits,

consequently, the civil revision petition No.1358 of 2023 is liable to

be dismissed.

29) In view of the discussion made in Civil Revision Petition

No.1358 of 2023, the Civil Revision Petition Nos.1357 and 1359 of

2023 are also liable to be dismissed.

30) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition Nos.1358, 1357 and

1359 of 2023 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

31) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,

shall also stand dismissed.

______________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

08.01.2026

Ksp