The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri. Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. Pasham Ravindra Reddy The Court made the foltowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.243 oF 2024 ORDER: This Civit Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, I{anamkonda in I.A.No.420 of 2023 in OS.No.2372 of 2022.

2. f{eard Sri Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Pasham Ravindra Reddy, leamed counsel fbr respondent. l. I-he revision petitioner is defendant and the respondent hcrein is plaintifl in the suit before the trial Court. For convenience, Ircr-cinalter the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the suit. -+. 'Ihe tacts of the case, in brief, are that the ptaintiff fi led a suit irr OS.No.2372 of 2022 (Old OS.No.42 of 2016) on rhe file of rhe II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda, against the dct.'ndant lbr pennanent injunction restraining him and his agents, rr trrkmen, etc., from interfering with the suit schedule property adrneasuring 0.23 guntas in Sy.No.579 of Waddepatly Village, Waransal District. The plaintiff claims ownership over the suit schedule property by way of inheritance from her rnother. The dcf'endant entered appearance and filed written staterncnt denying \ 2 LNA. J CRP.No.213 of 2021 the claim of the plaintiff and contended that his father purchased an extent of Ac.0.l8 guntas in Sy.No.573 (old), New No.58l of \\ \ Waddepally Village, from one Anumala Kommalu under simple sale deed dated 14.08.1980 and the said Anurnala Kommalu purchased the same from one Pingili Ranadheer Reddy under simple sale deed dated 02.04.1967.

5. When the suit is pending for adjudication, the plaintifl filed an application in IA.No.420 of 2023 under Older XIV Rule 5 CPC praying the trial Court to frame an additional issue as to whether Sy.No.581 admeasuring Ac.0.36 guntas abuts Hanamkonda Hyderabad main road and if so, the plaintiff has no claim over it

6. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the ptaintiff averred that the defendant is clainring ownership ot' land admeasuring Ac.0.l 8 guntas tn Sy.No.58l (new) lrom orre Anumala Kommalu and the said Anumala Kommalu was delendant No.9 in OS.No.3 of 1999, OS.No.4 of 1999 and OS.No.l06 of 1994; that in the said suit, an issue was framed as to whether the suit land was purchased by defendant No.9 fiom the father ol defendant No.8 and his father-P.Vijayapal Reddy in the year 1967 and in turn sold the said land to K.Rajaiah on 14.08.1980. The said 3 LNA, J CRP.N0.2$ of 2021 suit was dismissed after full-fledged trial and the judgment and decree passed in the said suit has become final. It was further averred that in view of dismissal of the suit, the defendant cannot claim title to the land admeasuring Ac.0.l8 guntas in Sy.No.58l through Anumala Kommalu; that the land in Sy.No.581 is different from the land in Sy.No.579 which is situated in suit schedule property and that the land in Sy.No.579 is facing main road Hanamkonda Hyderabad and the land in Sy.No.581 is situated north ol Sy.No.579 and no part of Sy.No.581 is abutting the main road, theretbre, the plaintiff filed the application to frame additional issuc as mentioned supra.

7. I he detbndant did not file counter in the said application and the trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings and contentions ot'the plaintif l, allowed the application vide impugned order dated l-.].11.1023. Challenging the same, the present Revision Petition is tl ted.

8. [-earnc-d counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant contended that the application filed by the plaintiff is misconceived and the triai Courr without properly appreciating the facts and circunrstalnccs of'the case has erroneously allowed the same by the I I I t t I I t I I ; i ; : i i i I I \\i \. 4 LNA, J CRP.Na.213 oI2021 impugned order. He further contended that the trial Court has disposed of the application without affording an opportunity of hearing to the defendant and in any event, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application. He further contended that the trial Court ought to have appointed an Advocate-Commissioner for identification of the suit properlry as to whether the same is abutting Hanamkonda - Hyderabad main road or not, instead of entertaining the application filed by the plaintiff and prayed to set aside the impugned order. g. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant contended that the trial Court, on proper appreciation of the case and taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case' has rightly allowed the application filed by the plaintiff' I{e lurther contended that framing of an additional issue as sought by the plaintilf would be in the interest of justice and would aid in proper adjudication of the /ls between the parties to the suit' [{ence' he contended that this Revision Petition is devoid of any merits and is tiabte to be dismissed. 10. Perusal of record would disclose that the plaintilf is ctaiming land in Sy.No'579, whereas the defendant is claiming land i i I I t I l ,l :l i I j 5 LNA, J CRP.No.213 of 2024 admeasuring Ac 0.36 guntas in Sy.No.58l. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the vendor of defendant- Anumala Kommalu has suffered a decree against him and as such, the defendant cannot claim ownership over the land in Sy.No.58l. Further, the defendant has specifically averred that the land being claimed by him which is forming part ol Sy.No.58l is facing and abutting Hanamkonda _ Hyderabad main road and therefore, the burden is on the defendant to prove the said conrention. In the above facfual background, the plaintiff filed the application to frame additional issue as mentioned supra. I l. As per Order XIV Rule 5 CpC, the Court may, at any time before passing a decrce, amend or strike out issues and frame additional issues in such rerms as it thinks fit to be necessary for determining the matters in controversy.

12. In the prescnr case, the defendant is claiming that the land in Sy.No.58l is aburting and facing Hanamkonda _ Hyderabad main road, whereas the plaintiff is claiming that the land claimed by the delcndant in S_i.No.58l is situared north of Sy.No.579 and that, no parl ol- S_r,.No.-581 is abutting the main road. Since the contentions/c laints ot'both the parties are at variance with regard to i 6 LNA, J CRP.No.213 o/ 2021 actual location of land in Sy.No.581, it is appropriate to frame an additionat issue as sought by the plaintiff for proper adjudication of the /is between the Parties.

13. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has righty allowed the application of the ptaintiff seeking to frame an additional issue and the revision petitioner/defendant has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and accordingly, the Revision Petition is liable to be disrrissed. I 4. [n the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed' I 5. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed No costs. 1 //TRUE COPY'/ SDI K. BHAVANI SWAMY ISTA NT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The ll Addl Junior Civil Judge' at Hanumakonda One CC to Sri Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar Advocate [OPUCI One CC to Sri. Pasham Ravindra Reddy Advocate [OPUCI 3 4. Two CD CoPies \lt,\ rlr t _ -_ -:11 TA () r il!, 20ffi * F-r/if IT\ J:. ,i HIGH COURT DATED:03 tO4t2O2S ORDER CRP.No.243 of 2024 0/ 4/7 //g CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED.