APHC010439352024

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 NO: 2285/2024

Between:

1. MUTHAM CHETTY MUNEIAHA, ( DIED )

2. M. SYAMALA, W/O. LATE M MUNEIAH, AGED ABOUT 53

YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. VEMURU VILLAGE AND

POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTO OR DISTRICT.

3. M. HIMABINDU, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 37

YEARS. HOUSE WIFE. FLAT NO. 315, SPANDANA

APARTMENT, THUMMALAGUNTA PANCHAYAT, TIRUPATI

RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST.

4. M BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED

ABOUT 35 YEARS. HOUSEWI FE, FLAT NO. 315,

SPANDANA APARTMENT, THUMMALAGUNTA

PANCHAYAT, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DIST

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. M VENKATA SUBBAIAH, ( DIED )

2. M SUBRAMANYAM, S/O. M VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED

ABOUT 55 YEARS. CULTIVATION R/O. D NO. 1 -3/3,

VEMURU VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATI CHITTOOR

DISTRICT.

3. M SUDHAKAR, S/O. M VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT

52 YEARS CULTIVATION D NO. 1 -3/4, VEMURU VILLAGE

AND POST, TIRUPATI CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

4. M LOKANADHAM, S/O. M VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED

ABOUT 50 YEARS. CULTIVATION, D NO. 1/3/4, VEMURU

VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATI CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

5. R DHANALAKSHMI, W/O. RAVULA SIVAJI, AGED ABOUT 55

YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O. D NO. 18-1-374, TIRUPATI TOWN

Reserved on 11.12.2025

Pronounced on 08.01.2026

Uploaded on 08.01.2026

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

2

AND URBAN MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

6. SYAMALA CHENGALRAYUL U, W/O. S SUBBARAMAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. D NO. 18 -1-84, BHAVANI

NAGAR, TIRUPATI TOWN AN URBAN MANDAL,

CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

7. M SUSEELA, W/O. M VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT

75 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE R/O. D NO. 1 -3/4, VEMURU

VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPTI RURAL MANDAL,

CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

8. P SUMATHI, W/O. P RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

HOUSEWIFE, D NO. 8 -15, SAMAJAM STREET, NEAR

SURYANARAYANA TEMPLE, TIRUCHANUR, TIRUPATI

RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 toAggrieved by the decree and order dated

4.3.2024 passed in lA No. 621/2018 in OS No. 167/2012 on the file

of IV Addl District Judge, Tirupati,

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 further

proceedings in OS No. 167/2012 on the file of IV Additional District

Judge, Tirupati pending disposal of the above CRP in the interest of

justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 may be pleased to vacate the

interim order dated 21.03.2025 in C.R.P.No.2285 of 2024 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. T C KRISHNAN

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD

2.

The Court made the following:

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

3

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners – plaintiffs

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order

date 04.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.621 of 2018 in O.S.No.167 of

2012 by the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, whereby, the Trial

Court dismissed the said interlocutory application filed under Order

VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short

―C.P.C.‖) to amend the plaint.

2) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will

hereinafter be referred as plaintiffs and defendants, as arrayed

before the Trial Court in I.A.No.621 of 2018 in O.S.No.167 of 2012.

3) Initially, one Mutham Chetty Muneiaha, who is the husband of

petitioner No.2, and father of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 filed suit

O.S.No.167 of 2012 for declaration of title and consequential

permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property. After

death of said Mutham Chetty Muneiaha, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are

brought on record vide orders passed in I.A.No.379 of 2019 dated

06.11.2019 as plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. After examination of P.Ws.1 to 3,

the deceased Mutham Chetty Muneiaha secured some documents

from the public authorities about correct genealogy instead of

mentioned in the plaint and filed an application in the year 2018 to

receive those documents and to amend the plaint as it is necessary

to bring true facts on record based on public documents. As the suit

was filed way back in 2012, the trial Court dismissed the application

I.A.No.621 of 2018 seeking amendment on the ground that the

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

4

evidence was adduced basing on the earlier pleadings of the both

the parties. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is

filed by the petitioners – plaintiffs.

4) When the matter listed for hearing, on 21.03.2025 this Court

passed the following interim order.

―…………In view of the rival contentions, post after two

(02) weeks. Till then, there shall be stay of all further proceedings

in O.S.No.167 of 2012 on the file of the Court of IV Additional

District Judge, Tirupati‖]

5) Thereafter, the said interim order has been extended from

time to time.

6) Respondent No.6 filed counter contended that the plaintiffs

filed suit O.S.No.167 of 2012 seeking declaration of title and

permanent injunction claiming ownership over Ac.2.47 cents in

Sy.No.330 of Vemuru Village. The case of the plaintiffs is based on

a specific genealogy and a registered sale deed dated 22.11.1976

allegedly executed by Govindaswamy in favour of their ancestor

Muthamsetty Subbaiah. After filing the suit, the petitioners filed an

amendment vide I.A.No.630 of 2017, wherein they themselves

replaced the earlier genealogy with a second version, adding new

names, modifying family branches, and altering the claimed source

of title. This amendment was allowed by the Trial Court vide order

dated 13.11.2017. Thereafter, the petitioners were examined as

P.Ws.1 to 3 and they were subjected to extensive cross-

examination and there are contradictions between the earlier

pleading and oral testimony.

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

5

7) After cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, the petitioners -

plaintiffs suddenly claimed that they had discovered "correct

genealogy" and "new documents" and filed I.A. 621 of 2018

seeking to delete the entire earlier genealogy and replace it with a

third genealogy, which cannot be allowed. By virtue of the proposed

amendment, the petitioners seek to change their entire flow of title

and source of ownership.

8) Originally, the suit was based solely on a registered sale deed

dated 22.11.1976 purportedly executed by one Govindaswamy in

favour of the Muthansetty Subbaiah. The petitioners conducted their

entire case, evidence, and cross-examination on this foundational

fact. Now, however, they claim that the suit schedule property is

ancestral joint family property devolving from several generations,

thereby discarding their earlier admitted basis of title. This sudden

shift transforms the nature of the suit from one based on a sale

deed to one based on ancestral inheritance. The very foundation of

the plaintiff's case is rendered wholly unreliable, as the genealogies

put forth by them have undergone three drastic and mutually

contradictory transformations.

9) In the original plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that the ancestor

Subbanna had two sons, namely M.Venk atarayulu Chetty and

M.Munaswamy Chetty. However, in the first amended plaint (vide

orders in I.A. No. 630 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017), the plaintiffs

altered this position and asserted that Subbanna had only one son,

thereby contradicting their own earlier version. Again, in the

proposed amendment now sought, the plaintiffs introduced a third

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

6

genealogy wherein, in the branch of Subbarayulu, it is newly shown

that M.Munaswamy Chetty had two sons Pedda Munaswamy Chetty

and Chinna Munaswamy Chetty which is in complete variance with

both the original and earlier amended genealogies. At each stage,

i.e. first in the original plaint, second in the amended plaint, and now

in the present petition – the plaintiffs changed the structure of

genealogy, thereby trying to change the pleadings, which cannot be

permitted, and requested to dismiss the revision.

10) During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs

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

suit. While the suit is under progress, they secured documents from

the public authorities about the correct genealogy, and filed the

present petition to amend the plaint. Therefore, to decide the real

controversy, and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the present

petition has to be allowed. Therefore, he requested this Court to

allow the revision.

11) Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants supported

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

to dismiss the revision petition.

12) The petitioners-plaintiffs filed the petition under Order VI Rule

17 of C.P.C. seeking to amend Genealogy of their entire joint family

and to delete and add certain paragraphs in the plaint. For better

appreciation, this Court feels it appropriate to extract Order VI Rule

17 of C.P.C., which is as follows:

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

7

―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) Normally, when petitions under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.

are filed at pretrial stage, Court would order such applications

granting leave to parties to amend their pleadings and if it is post-

trial amendment, then Court may put on guard in allowing such

applications since it would cause prejudice to the other parties to the

suit or proceedings.

14) Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. consists of two parts, namely; first

part is discretionary and leaves it to the Court to order amend

pleadings and second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the

Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose

of deciding real controversy between the parties. The real

controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary

duty of the Court to decide whether such amendment is necessary

to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, amendment

will be allowed and if it is not, amendment shall be refused. Even if

the principle laid down in the above judgment is applied to the

present facts of the case, the Court cannot negate the relief of

amendment since the petitioners wanted to clean the dirt by brining

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

8

certain facts to the notice of Court by amending plaint by filing

petition under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.

15) According to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., 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 principles to allow petitions under Order VI Rule 17

of C.P.C. are well settled, namely; the amendment shall not alter the

basic structure or nature of the claim and that the amendment shall

not take away the valuable right that accrued to the respondents or

such amendment would not amount to withdrawal of unequivocal

admissions made in the pleadings as held by the Apex Court in

―Rajkumar Guruwara (dead) through LRs Vs. S.K. Sarwagi and

Company Private Limited and another

1

‖. In view of the law

declared by the Apex Court in the above judgment, the Court has to

find out whether the proposed amendment would fall within the

parameters laid down by the Apex Court and if it would fall within

the ambit of the guidelines, Court can allow such amendments,

otherwise reject the same.

16) In the present facts of the case, the plaintiffs filed the suit in

the year 2012 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction.

In 2017, they filed petition I.A.No.630 of 2017 seeking amendment

of the plaint, however, the said petition was allowed by the trial

1

(2008) 14 SCC 364

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

9

Court. Thereafter, plaintiffs examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and they were

cross-examined at length. After completion of cross-examination of

P.Ws.1 to 3, the petitioners – plaintiffs filed the present petition to

amend the plaint on ground that the amendment can be granted at

any stage of the proceedings.

17) In ―T.Pedda Veeranna Vs. P.Lakshmi Devi

2

‖, relied on by

the learned counsel for the petitioners, the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows:

―……when once the Court arrives at the conclusion that

the application for amendment is genuinely made and out of

necessity and with a view to remove any ambiguity, the Court

shall be liberal in granting amendment at any stage of the

proceedings. The proviso therefore is only a measure of Caution

against dilatory tactics but the real question to be considered is

the genuineness of the application made seeking amendment.

The delay can be compensated by money but shall not come in

the way of adjudicating the rights of the parties properly.

Therefore, if the amendment petition is filed after the trial had

begun, it is obligatory on the part of the party seeking amendment

to satisfy the Court that in spite of due diligence, he could not

make the application at appropriate time. The Court can allow the

amendment petition, if it is satisfied that the party could not

pursue the remedy of seeking amendment in spite of exercising

due diligence.‖

18) In ―Bodhan Filling Station VS. B.Padmavathi

3

‖, relied on by

the learned counsel for the petitioners, the High Court of Andhra

2

2010 (6) ALT 564

3

2010 (6) ALT 564

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

10

Pradesh at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of

Andhra Pradesh held that ―amendment of pleading may be

permitted at any stage as long as the same is necessary for

determining the real questions in controversy.‖

19) In ―Yalavarthi Gopala Rao Vs. Bommisetty Seshaiah

4

‖

relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the High Court

of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held that ―the object of Courts and

the rules of procedure is to decide the rights of parties and not to

punish them for their mistakes.‖

20) In ―T.Venkata Ravamma Vs. Karnati Lakshmamma

5

‖ relied

on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows:

―While deciding petitions filed under Order VI Rule 17 of

C.P.C., Courts have to keep in mind the object of the legislature in

permitting parties to amend their pleadings. The main object is to

avoid multiplicity of proceedings and shorten the litigation without

driving parties to further litigation.‖

21) The law laid down in the said judgments is not in dispute. In

view of the law laid down in the judgments (referred supra),

amendment can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings. But,

if the amendment petition is filed after the trial had begun, it is

obligatory on the part of the party seeking amendment to satisfy the

Court that in spite of due diligence, he could not make the

4

AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 155

5

2015 (5) ALT 184 (S.B.)

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

11

application at appropriate time. The Court can allow the amendment

petition, if it is satisfied that the party could not produce those

documents in spite of exercising due diligence.

22) In ―Asian Hotels (North) Limited Vs. Alok Kumar Lodha

6

‖

relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held as follows:

―The High Court while allowing the amendment application

in exercise of powers Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil

Procedure has not properly appreciated the fact and / or

considered the fact that as such, by granting such an amendment

and permitting Plaintiffs to amend the plaints incorporating the

prayer Clause to declare the respective charges / mortgages void

ab-initio, the nature of the suits will be changed. As per the settled

proposition of law, if, by permitting Plaintiffs to amend the plaint

including a prayer Clause nature of the suit is likely to be

changed, in that case, the Court would not be justified in allowing

the amendment. It would also result in misjoinder of causes of

action.

23) In ―M.Revanna Vs. Anjanamma (Dead) by Legal

Representatives and others

7

‖ relied on by the learned counsel for

the respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

―Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally

different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the

fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17

of the Code of Civil Procedure virtually prevents an application for

amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has

6

(2022) 8 SCC 145

7

(2019) 4 SCC 332

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

12

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 the trial. The proviso, to an extent,

curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage.

Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment

after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due

diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought

earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot

be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances.‖

24) 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

8

‖, relied on by the learned counsel for the

respondents, 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

8

2022 SCC OnLine 1128

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

13

to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not

result in injustice to the other side.

(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

crp_2285_2024

14

(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.‖

25) In ―Basavaraj Vs. Indira and others

9

‖ 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.‖

26) In the case in hand, by virtue of the proposed amendment, the

petitioners seek to change their entire flow of title and source

ownership. Further, in the newly proposed paragraph, the plaintiffs,

for the first time, introduced new version alleging that defendant

No.1 has created false revenue records, but this allegation was

never pleaded earlier. Further, the plaintiffs have failed to disclose

when and under what circumstances, they were dispossessed and

at what point of time the defendants’ possession allegedly became

adverse. By deleting the earlier substantial paragraphs of the plaint

and attempting to substitute them with these newly fabricated and

vague averments, the plaintiffs are seeking to reconstruct their case

and introduce a fresh cause of action. The amendment sought for

by the plaintiffs is nothing but an attempt to overcome the damaging

admissions and contradictions elicited during the cross-examination.

9

(2024) 3 SCC 705

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

15

27) Further, Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. 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 petitioners could not have raised the same before the

commencement of trial. By way of amendment, the petitioners

sought to change the genealogy of the joint family of their ancestors

on the ground that they are not aware of the same at the time of

filing of the suit. The said contention of the plaintiffs that they are not

aware of the genealogy of their joint family is not believable and

they must be vigilant to describe correct genealogy of their joint

family at the time of filing of the suit, however, amendment petition

earlier filed by them i.e. I.A.No.630 of 2017 was allowed and by

virtue of the same, genealogy was replaced with a second version,

adding new names, modifying family branches. Again, the

petitioners - plaintiffs filed the present petition to modify the

genealogy, this is not even the pleaded before the trial Court in the

application for amendment that due diligence was there at the time

of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed for by way of

amendment. They pleaded that after obtaining documents from the

concerned departments, they came to know the correct genealogy.

The same cannot be accepted, as they would have done the same

at the time of filing of the suit or at the time of filing of the earlier

amendment petition I.A.No.630 of 2017. As the petitioners want to

introduce new genealogy and inconsistent case after cross-

examination of P.Ws.1 to 3, the present petition cannot be allowed.

VS,J

crp_2285_2024

16

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 04.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.621 of

2018 in O.S.No.167 of 2012 and the revision is devoid of merits,

consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

29) In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

30) Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any,

shall also stand dismissed.

______________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

08.01.2026

Ksp