SAYED SABEERA v. SYED HANEEF

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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No.69 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpeta, SPSR Nellore, pending disposal of the above revision and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. SARANU PHANI TEJA The Court made the following: ORDER The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated

22.12.2025 in I.A.No.671 of 2025 in O.S.No.69 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.69 of 2025 against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.20.01 cents in S.Nos.22-2 and 22-2A of Periyavattu village, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3. a) In the plaint, it was contended, inter alia, that the schedule property is the plaintiff’s ancestral property and it is Inam land given to pakeers by the Government. The then Special Deputy Tahsildar for Inam, Gudur, granted ryotwari patta under the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. Late Syed Khadar Valli Sahib, father-in-law of the plaintiff, had three sons: Syed Dastagiri Saheb; Syed Mahaboob Hussain (husband of the plaintiff) and Syed Khaja Hussain. The said Syed Khadar Valli Sahib died on 18.06.1968. In the revenue records, the name of Syed Khadar Valli Sahib was entered as pattadar, and the name of the husband of the plaintiff was shown as enjoyers. The report of the village surveyor and Village Revenue Officer shows that the legal heirs of Syed Khadar Valli Sahib have been in possession of the subject land. The defendants have no right or title over the schedule property. The plaintiff’s husband constructed a house long back, obtained electricity and paid house tax to the Government. b) The family of the plaintiff left an extent of Ac.0.58 cents for cemetery and a tomb, as also built, and in the revenue records, it is mentioned as burial ground. The defendants are residents of Tamil Nadu and have nothing to do with the schedule property, and they attacked the son of the plaintiff, resulting in the registration of a case in Crime No.139 of 2024. On 13.04.2025, the defendants and their followers came to the schedule property and created a ruckus. The plaintiff’s son gave a report, and the police registered the same as a case in Crime No.63 of 2025 of Tada Police Station. The legal heirs of Syed Khadar Valli Sahib have moved to other towns to find livelihood, and the plaintiff and her son are taking care of the schedule property. c) In the cause of action Paragraph, it was mentioned that the cause of action for the suit arose on 26.04.2024 when a case was registered against the defendant in Crime No.139 of 2024 and on 13.04.2025 at 11.30 a.m. when the defendants created galata and tried to occupy the cemetery, and police registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2025.

4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.318 of 2025 for grant of ad- interim injunction. Initially, the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction. Upon filing the counter, the order of interim injunction was modified to status quo by order dated 18.07.2025 till the disposal of the suit.

5. The 3rd defendant filed written statement and contended that the husband of plaintiff Syed Mahaboob Hussain, his younger brother of Syed Khaja Hussain and brother-in-law’s son Syed Khadarvalli filed suit O.S.No.104 of 2008 against the 3rd respondent, his sister and their Power of Attorney, seeking permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property. The said suit was dismissed on contest on 28.12.2016. The plaintiff’s husband and others filed appeal A.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur. The appeal was dismissed on 18.08.2022. The judgment in O.S.No.104 of 2008 operates as res judicata. In fact, the 3rd respondent filed I.A.No.651 of 2025 on 16.05.2025 to frame a preliminary issue as to whether the suit is maintainable or not, as it is hit by res judicata under Section 11 of CPC.

6. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.671 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 10.11.2025 to amend the plaint by adding Paragraph 10 (A) and certain lines in Paragraph-11 and by substituting Paragraph-12 and to add the relief of declaration.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that previously there were civil disputes in respect of suit property between the plaintiff’s husband and his family members on one hand and the 3rd defendant and his family members on the other hand. The plaintiff’s husband, his brother and others filed suit O.S.No.104 of 2008 against the 3rd defendant and his family members seeking perpetual injunction. The plaintiff’s husband filed certain documents. The 3rd defendant and his family members filed written statement in O.S.No.104 of 2008 and filed fabricated documents in respect suit schedule property and also they examined the Tahsildar, Tada Mandal as D.W.2. The suit O.S.No.104 of 2008 was dismissed holding that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands, as the plaintiff is claiming an extent of Ac.20.01 cents in S.No.22/2, however, they had only Ac.15.00 cents. The appeal A.S.No.19 of 2017 was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.104 of 2008 assaulted the plaintiff’s son, resulting in the registration of cases in Crime Nos.139 of 2024 and 63 of 2025 of Tada Police Station. The defendant contended that the suit property is ancestral and hence, there is a cloud on the right and title of the suit land and such claim should be decided by way of relief of declaration. The suit O.S.No.104 of 2008 was filed for permanent injunction and no title was decided therein. The plaintiff and her ancestors perfected title to the lands for over 60 years and established continuous possession. To establish the real controversy, it is just and necessary to amend the plaint and also to avoid multiplicity of litigation. No prejudice would be caused to the defendant, if the amendment is allowed.

8. The 3rd defendant filed a counter and opposed the application.

9. The trial Court by order dated 22.11.2025 dismissed the application.

10. Heard Ms K.Saritha, learned counsel representing Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Phani Teja, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

11. Now, the points for consideration are: 1) Whether the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment is legally sustainable? 2) Whether the order dated 22.12.2025 in I.A.No.671 of 2025 in O.S.No.69 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet suffers from illegality, and brooks interference of this Court?

12. The facts narrated supra require no reiteration. The object of amendment is proper and effective adjudication of the case and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is an established principle of law that while considering the application for amendment, normally the Court shall not go into the merits of the case. The primary object of the Court is to see whether the amendment is imperative in proper and effective adjudication and whether seeking amendment is bona fide or mala fide. The application for amendment can be ordered if the amendment is bona fide and where the amendment fundamentally or constitutionally does not change the nature or character of the suit.

13. In this case at hand, as seen from the plaint, on 02.05.2025, it seems ad-interim injunction was granted. Upon filing the counter by the 3rd defendant, the order of injunction was modified to the order of status quo on 18.07.2025. It is also borne out from the record that against the order of status quo, the 2nd defendant filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur and the same was allowed on 10.11.2025 by setting aside the order of status quo and the I.A.No.318 of 2025 was remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. A counter was filed in I.A.No.318 of 2025 on 16.05.2025. The defendant also filed I.A.No.651 of 2025 on 16.05.2025 under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC to frame a preliminary issue. Though the written statement was filed in the suit, the copy of the same was not made available in the revision. After the written statement was filed by narrating the suit O.S.No.104 of 2008, filed by the plaintiff’s husband and others, the present application was filed seeking amendment.

14. Of course, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial in the suit has not been commenced. In fact, issues are also not settled till date. However, whether the amendment now sought, in the considered opinion of this court, is to overcome the legal bar and to nullify the effect of earlier adjudication, requires to be considered in the facts of this case.

15. In Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons1, the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering several judgments, laid down certain factors to be considered while dealing with the applications seeking amendment.

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd2, after considering numerous precedents in Life 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 CPC. (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. (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 -