YELUGUBANTI SAVITRI v. PENTAPATI SURYAVATHI

PENAPATI BHAVANI, W/O SRI VEERA BHADRA RAO. R/O KEDARI PENAPATI BHAVANI, W/O SRI VEERA BHADRA RAO. R/O KEDARI 4. PENAPATI BHAVANI, W/O SRI VEERA BHADRA RAO. R/O KEDARI MANDAL, MANDAL, LANKA MANDAL, DR.B.R.A.KONASEEMA DISTRICT DR.B.R.A.KONASEEMA DISTRICT KAPILESWARAPURAM KAPILESWARAPURAM KAPILESWARAPURAM 223, 223, 223, 533 533 533 - PENTAPATI POLICE, S/O SRI VENKATA RAO, R/O D.NO. 2-38, PENTAPATI POLICE, S/O SRI VENKATA RAO, R/O D.NO. 2 5. PENTAPATI POLICE, S/O SRI VENKATA RAO, R/O D.NO. 2 533 309 KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL, DR. B. R.A. KORUMILLI - 533 309 KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL, DR. B. R.A. 533 309 KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL, DR. B. R.A. 2 KONASEEMA DISTRICT

6. VATTIKUTI SUSEELA, W/O SRI NAGESWARA RAO, R/O VELLA - 533 255, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.A.KONASEEMA DISTRICT

7. PENTAPATI SATYANARAYANA BURAYYA, S/O SRI VENKATA RAO, INAPURAM - 533 216, KAPILESWARAPURAM R/O D.NO. 4-63, MANDAL, DR.B.R.A.KONASEEMA 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 to call for the records relating to the Decree and Order made in I.A.No.212 of 2022 in O.S.No.162 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate - Cum - Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, dated 05-12-2022 and set aside the same by allowing the I.A. filed in the suit and 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.162 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate — Cum - Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, pending disposal of the present C.R.P. and pass 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 to extend the interim order granted in CRP No.813 of 2023 dated 28-03-2023, pending disposal of the present CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. RAHUL KALAKURCHA 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the correctness and legality of the order and decree, dated

05.12.2022 passed in Interlocutory Application No.212 of 2022 in Original Suit No.162 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that: i) The petitioners herein are plaintiffs and respondents herein are defendants in O.S.162 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. ii) The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.162 of 2019 seeking partition of Plaint A and B schedule properties into six equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such 1/6th share each to the plaintiffs and deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs and for grant of future profits relating to the plaint schedule property over 1/6th share of each of the plaintiffs i.e., 1/3rd share from the date of filing the suit till realization of possession with interest at 12% from the respective due dates. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.212 of 2022, under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, praying the Court to permit them to amend the plaint for effective adjudication of rights in relation to the schedule properties by adding Paragraph 6A and by including an additional 4 property in the suit schedule along with consequential amendment of the prayer. iii) In the said Interlocutory Application, the defendants filed counter denying the allegations contending that the petitioners, in collusion with other respondents, had filed the said application for impleading the same under the litigation of partition by showing the same as a joint family property. It was further contended that the petitioner had already filed her chief examination, the trial had commenced and at that stage filing such an application was only to drag the proceedings. It is also contended that respondent No.6 acquired the proposed amended property by way of a registered sale deed and that she is the absolute owner and having possession over the same and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Interlocutory Application. iv) After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the interlocutory application was filed when the trial was pending for filing of the plaintiff’s chief affidavit and that allowing the petition would cause injustice to the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter contending that the petitioners have approached the Court with unclean hands. It is further contended that after filing the present suit for partition, respondent No.6 filed suit in O.S.No.287 of 2019 for injunction against the petitioners/plaintiffs and other respondents in respect of the property belonging to her, which is now 5 sought to be included as an additional schedule in the present suit in O.S.No.162 of 2022. It is further contended that respondent No.6 acquired the same under a registered sale deed and after attaining majority, has been in possession of the said property since about 20 years. It is further stated that she obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds and has become the absolute owner and having possession over the proposed amendment schedule property. Since respondent No.6 filed suit in O.S.287 of 2019 after the filing of O.S.No.162 of 2019 by the petitioners herein and other respondents herein got filed the present application seeking to implead the same property in the partition suit. It is further contended that respondent No.6 had already filed her chief examination affidavit in O.S.No.287 of 2019 thereby commencing the trial and that the present petition thereafter came to light, which itself clearly shows that the revision petitioners have filed the present petition only to drag on the proceedings before the trial Court. It is further contended that in O.S.No.287 of 2019, the revision petitioners have filed their written statement, wherein there is no averment with regard to the proposed schedule property sought to be added or amended in O.S.No.162 of 2019. There are no tenable grounds to entertain the present Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of 6 Interlocutory Application, contended that after filing the suit for partition, the plaintiffs came to know about existence of one more property belonging to the joint family which had not been included in the schedule of the suit and that the said property is also liable for partition and accordingly they filed I.A.No.212 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. He further contended that the trial Court failed to see the said provision in a right perspective and dismissed the application solely on the ground that the trial had commenced and the plaintiffs had already filed their chief affidavit and that allowing the application at that stage would cause loss and injury to the respondents. He further contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the well settled principle that in order to resolve the real controversy between the parties, refusal to permit such amendment would create endless complications and would also lead to multiplicity of litigation. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. The point that arises for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing I.A. No.212 of 2022 seeking amendment of the plaint.

8. A perusal of the record would disclose that, in the suit for partition, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.212 of 2022 seeking to include an extent of Ac.0.40 cents out of eastern side extent of Ac.1.76 ½ cents out of southern side full extent of Ac.3-52 cents in RS No.92/2 corresponding to old RS No.107/1B and 107/2 7 situated in Gangavaram village alleging that the same is joint family property and ancestral property. It is stated that the property was purchased out of joint family funds and income derived from the joint family properties, and that the father of the plaintiffs, late Sri Pentapati Venkatarao purchased the said property in the name of respondent No.6, who was then a minor, nominally in her name. It is further pleaded that all the legal heirs of late Pentapati Venkatarao have been jointly enjoying the said property and that the same is liable for partition. Respondent No.6 is claiming the said property as her exclusive property. Whether the said property is the self acquired property of respondent No.6 or a joint family property cannot be decided either at the stage of the Interlocutory Application by the trial Court or by this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition. If ultimately the said property is held to be joint family property and is not included in the suit for partition, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation, necessitating the filing of another suit for partition.

9. Admittedly the matter is coming up for chief examination of P.W.1. At this stage, if the said application is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, in fact, the controversy with regard to the issue also would be settled, thereby putting a quietus to the litigation. On the other hand, if the said application is not allowed, the parties will have to file another suit for partition, which would lead to multiplicity of litigation. 8

10. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil 1 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: “ All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions a) of not working injustice to the other side and b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.

11. Further in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited2, the Hon’ble Court, after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles, which reads as follows: (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. 1 [AIR 1957 SC 363] 2 (2022) 8 SCR 1121 9 (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. (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. In the present case, by virtue of the proposed amendment, it would not change the nature of the suit.

12. The sole ground on which the application was dismissed is that the trial had commenced and the matter was coming up for P.W.1’s chief affidavit. The settled legal position, as laid down in judicial precedents, is that the requirement of satisfying the due diligence concept is mandatory being a pre-requisite, if the 10 trial had once commenced besides the other considerations, where the amendment is necessarily to resolve the real controversy and where does not cause grave prejudice or injustice to other side and where it does not alter the cause of action or inconsistent to the existing material/pleadings on record. It can be allowed where the amendment is necessary to explain the material on record.

13. For the reasons stated supra, the trial Court failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the settled principles and thereby erroneously dismissed the application. The petitioners have raised valid grounds warranting interference by this Court, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2022. Consequently, I.A.No.212 of 2022 in O.S.No.162 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram is allowed. However, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to claim their exclusive rights and oppose the claim for partition of the property by filing an additional written statement, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. Date: 07.04.2026 MP ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 11 180 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:813 of 2023 Date: 07.04.2026 MP