The High Court · 2025

1. Gangapuram Sridhar Reddy, s/o Pandu Ranga Reddy Age: 45years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o Rachalapally village, Urkonda Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. 2. Gangapuram Panduranga Reddy, s/o Narayana Reddy, Age: 78years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o Rachalapally village, Urkonda Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. ...Revision Petitioners/Respondents-Defendants AND Kambalapally Srinivasa Reddy, s/o late Kambalapally Yadagiri Reddy Age 65years, Occ: Retired Employee and Agriculture, r/o Rahcapally village, Urkonda Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. ...RespondenUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.119 of 2024 on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, Nagarkurnool District. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: Kambalapally Srinivasa Reddy, s/o Kambalapally Yadagiri Reddy Age: 65years, Occ: Retired Employee and Agriculture, r/o Rachalapally village, Urkonda Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. ... Petitioner/Respondent-Plaintiff AND

1. Gangapuram Sridhar Reddy, s/o Pandu Ranga Reddy Age: 45years, Occ: Agridulture, r/o Rachalapally village, Urkonda Mandal, Nagarkurnool Dishict.

2. Gangapuram Pandu Ranga Reddy, s/o Narayana Red,j Agriculture, r/o Rachalapally village, Urkonda lVlandal, I'li ...RespondenURevision P,-' ', Age: 78years, Occ: garkurnool District. itioners-D efe n d a nts Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that r stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the: pleased to Vacate the interim orders dated 211O312025 pi 2024 in CRP No. 876 of 2025 aod to dismiss the petition. the circumstances High Court may be ssed in l.A No 1 of Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K VENKATESH GUPTA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI KRISHNAIAH GINUKUt\ - LA The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA C.R.P.No.876 of 2025 Date 19.L2.2O25 Between: C:urgapuram Sridhar Reddy and another Kambalapalll, Srin ivas Reddy ORDER ... Petitioners . . . Respondenl Hearrl Mr. K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the peritioners and Mr.Krishnaiah Ginukuntla, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.O1 2025 passed in

1.A.No.496 of 2022 in O.S.No.l19 of 2024 on the file of the learned Scnior Civil Judge at Kalu'akurthy, this revision petition has been liled by the revision petitioners-defendants.

3. The background facts are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed O.S.No.1 i9 of 2024 for perpetual injunction with respect to the suit schedule property consisting of Ac O 12 guntas in Survey No. 119/A/1 situated in Rachalapally Village, Urkonda Mandal, 2 Nagarkurnool District. During pendency of tht, ,uit. the rcvisior-r petitioners-del'cndat-rts have forcibly dispossesst., I .he responder-r t plaintilf fronr the suit schcdule propert\. Thcrefore. tl-rc respondent-plaintiff filccl I.A.No.zl96 of 2022 un(r, r. Order VI Rulc 17 read *'ith l5r of thc Civil procecrure cocle ser.r: ng to amend t}-rc plaint. Learncd Senior Civil Judge ukle ordet rirted 23.O l.2O2S allorved the application. Hence, the present r!.,, sion per ition is filed.

4. Learned counsel lor the revision petitioner s suDmilted that the rcsponde.r plaintilf could alwal.s withch I , .. tl-re suit for perpetual inju.ction and rrle a fresh suit seel. i rg the r-elief of declarzrtion of title and recovery of possession. I carnecl counsel further submittr:d that the cause of action for I. l ,g thc suit for perpetual injur-r<:tion is different from the cause ()f action for filir-rg suit for declaration of title and recovery of posses:; cn. The nature of the suit would cha'rgc substantiallv q,hen the r(, ief sought for is change d from one of simpliciter injunction to tlt,: of recoven, of possesston

5. Learned counsel for the respondent sr-rl; I jtted that the respondent u'as in possession of the suit sched L I _- prolrerty, but he u,as forcibl-1' dispossessed b-1,- the revision rr_,titroner.s and conten(led that amendment of thc pleaclings can )e pern'ritted at I \ 3 any stage of the proceedings. In support of his contention, learned counse I relied upon the judgment of this Court in C'R'P'No 1086 of 20 18 and also the ratio laid dou'n by the Apex Court in Abdul Rehrnc:n and another Vs. Mohd' Ruldu and others' u herein it u,as hclcl that all amendments u'hich are necessary for the purposc of delermining real questions of controversy betu'een the partics shoulcl be allow'ecl if it does not change the basic nature of the suit. A change in the nature of relief claimed shall not be consiclcrer:l as a chatlge in the nature of suit and the pou'er of amendmcnt shouild be exercised rn the larger interests of doing full and complete justice between the parties'

6. When this Court questioned as to what is the inconvenrence or clifficultl' faced bv the petitioners in case the amendment is permitted, learr-red counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent \\:as never in possession of the suit schedule property' lf the amenciment is permitted, it would cause prejudice to the petitioners and that nature of the suit itself is changed bv seeking I ) reliet of declaration ol title and recovery of possession' 7 . This Court sees two plausible situations i'e'' the respondent- plaintiff \vas never in possession of the suit schedule property' but has filed a suit for perpetual injunction' Having failed to secure temporary injunction, the impugned application has been filed by ( I i J 4 the respondent to arnend the plaint seeking der:lar rtion of titlc and recovery of possessior-r during pendencv of the srL r\lternativelv' the respondetlt \\'zls rr-rdeecl in possession of t - - sr-tit schcclule propcrty but he rvas l'orcibly dispossessed'

8. This Court is ol rhe opinion that pending re suit' u'ith the amendments thereon, r 'ould give a fair opport'I lit-\' to troth the partiestopro\rethcirrespe<:tivecaseduringtri;1.'l'llcreforctl-re relief sought in lhe rcvision callnot be grantc'd ' In the result, the Civil Revision Petitiorr i ' dismissed The 9. revision petitioners may file an additional u l i- etl statemelrt to meet the contingencv of the amendments carrit'cl cut in the plaint. There shall be no ordcr as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if aly, pending lr) 1-ris petition, strall stand closed ScL/ M. OSMAN ALI BAIG .A:i ;ISTANT REGISTRAR \\ \ ,\ '.\Ecnou oFFlcER //TRUE COPY// i ) I I To, 1 2 J 4 The Senior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, Nagarkurnool O"; ba trc Sri K Ven-katesh Gupta, Advocate [OPUC I o;; aa io sri xrisnnaian Ginukuntla' Advocate [oPtl )l Two CD CoPies ^E i trict ABK /DL HIGH COURT DATED: 1911212025 ORDER CRP.No.876 of 2025 ,...- ;D\' I4 0 !i AN ?0ffi J( (a (i o a'i '2. t's I i:/ DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS t t