1. Sri Guntakandla Pitchi Reddy died v. Smt. Kosanam Dhanalakshmi

1. Sri Guntakandla Pitchi Reddy died, Sri Guntakandla Pitchi Reddy, died 2. Sri Guntakandla Narasirnha Reddy, S/o. late Sri G.Pitchi Reddy, aged about 55 years, Occ R.T.C. driver, Rl/o. 3-8-351/1, Plot No.'108, Road No.2 Chandrapuri colony, L.B.Nagar, Saroornagar, Ranga Fleddy.

3. Sri Guntakandla Jalendar Reddy, S/o. late Sri G.Pitch Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ . Agriculture, No. 10-7211, Vijayanagar Colony Vardhamanukota village, Arvapally mandal, Suryapet district.

4. Sri Guntakandla Rajashekar Reddy, S/o. late Sri G.P tchi Reddy aged about 41 years, Occ. business Rl/o. H.No.3-8-35 1/1 , Plot No.108 Road No.2, Chandrapuri Colony, L.B.Nagar Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy. ...RESPON DENTS/PETITIONERS Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances staled in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co..rrt may be pleased to vacate the inlerim order passed in l.A.No.01 of 2025 in C.R.P.No. 927 of 2025 dated 2110312O25. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. SHYAM S AGRAWAL Counsel for the Respondent: DR. KADIRI KRISHNAIAH The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY C IVIL REVISION PETITION No.927 of 2025 ORDER: This Revision is filcd aggrieved by order datcd 28'02.2025 in lA.No.482 of 2024 in OS.No.l67 of 2016 on the file ol Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondent hcrein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed 2 Hcard Sri Shyarn S.Agarrval, learned counsel for petitioners and Dr. Kadiri Krishna, learned counsel for respondent

3. Brief t-acts ol the case are that initially, respondent filed a suit in OS.No.24 ol 20 l2 bclbrc the Junior Civil Judge, Thungathurthy, lor injunction nt respect of land admeasuring Acs.4. 13 guntas in Sy.No.474 (4'r.41 A), Vardhamankota Village, Arvapally Mandal, Nalgonda District; that subsequently, the same was translerred to Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet and re-nutnbered as OS.No. 167 of 2016; that thc pctitioners entered appearance and filed written statelnent, issues were fiarned and trial commenced and at that stage, the respondent llled an application vide lA.No.482 of 2024 under Order VI Rulc I7 CPC to amend the plaint by deleting the extent of suit schcdule property ol Acs.4.30 guntas in Sy.No.474lA and to .- ) LNA, J t'RP \,a 9)7 o.l202 i substitute the sarre as ,Acs.2.-.l j gunras irr Sy.No ,+74All 12,.; and tl.tat the petitioners herein filed countcr resisting thc saici application. 4, In the affidavit fited in supporl ol tlrc application, the respondent/praintiff averred that rvhile verirling tic facts ofthe case, her counsel has noticed that part olthe suit schcrtule property which was acquired by the Government was not dcloted lrom the suit schedule, which is a subsequent development rrn<l thus, she was constrained to file an application fbr antcndment.

5. 'Ihe trial Courl vide impLrgned order allou crl the application with an observation that suit is flled lbr perperrral injunction and whether the def-endants have interf-ered u,ith he suit schedule propefty can only be proved by leading convincinq cvidence during trial and that,o prejudice will bc caused to the orhcr side ilthe suit schedule property is amended as it does not amount to alteration of basic structure of the suit. Challenging the said order, the present Revision is filed.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitterl that p.Ws.l and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondenr liere inlplaintiff, documents were marked and cross-cxamination of t rc said witnesses was also closed in the suit in the vcar 20 I 4 by the (_ ourt where the LRP.,\o D7 ol )02 j suit was originally institutcd, i.c., Junior Civil Judge's Court, Thungathurthy, however, it was set aside on an application; and that subsequently, it was translerred to Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet; and that, alter a lapse ol t2 years tiorn the date ol filing of the suit, the respondent came up with an application lor amendment of the suit schedule property in the year 2014 on the ground that part of the suit schedule property was acquired by SRSP canal and also for laying of Jangaon to Suryapet road and thus, the left over land is only an extent of Acs.2.33 guntas, which amounts to completely changing the nature of the suit and thus, the sarnc is irnpermissible. Learned counsel fufther submitted that the land was acquired by the Government lor SRSP canal way back in the year 2007 and notice under Sections 9(3) and l0 of Land Acquisition Act. 1894, was issued on 16.07-2007, thus, the land was acquired even belore filing of the suit' Therefore, the contention of thc respondent herein /plainti ff that she was in possession of Acs.4.30 gutnas and she has been cultivating the said land and that the revision petitioners herein were interfering with her possession are factually incorrcct.

6.1. Leamed counsel for petitioners lurther subrnitted that in the affidavit fited in support of thc application, the respondent herein 4 ('Rl \o 9lr ol )D5 except stating that while verifying the case lacts. her counsel came to knou' that a paft of land was not deleted tiorn the suit schedule property and the same was acquired by the Cr.r.crnment lbr SRSp canal and lor laying of Jangaon to Suryapet roatl. .o othcr r.eason has heen assigned by her. 6.2- Leamed counsel for petitioners vocilerousr.., conte.ded that the application fbr amendment is filed after I2 year.s fiom the date of filing of suit and no proper reason or explanation tas becn ofl.ered by the respondent fbr fiting the said application at srrch a belated stage. Ilc further contended that alter commenct:nlcnt of- trial, no amendment can be entertained as mandated untlcr ( )rder_ VI Rule I 7 CPC. Therefore, the application filed by the resporrclent herein is not rnaintainable and the trial Court has committcd crror in allowing the application without properly appreciating the lacrs ol.the case and thus, prayed to allow the Revision.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioncrs, ir support ol. his contentions. relied upon the following judgments of the Hon,ble Supreme Court:- (l)Kross S.A. Vs. Vijay Munjol and orherst 'MANtJ/DE/6958/202i l LNI, J D7 of )02i cRP ^ro (2)Chakali Pentamma and Others Vs. Chakali Balamma and others2 (3) M.Revanna Vs. Anjanatnnru (deod) bt, LRs ontl others3.

8. Per conlra, learned counsel lor respondent submitted that suit was filed by respondent/plaintilf in tl'rc year 2012 and after filing of the suit, the Govemment has takcn steps to acquire the land and ultimately, the compensation was paid fbr part of land, i.e., Ac.0.l0 guntas acquired for SRSP canal on I 1.06.20 15, whereas the name of the respondent has been continued in the revenue records for the total extent of suit schedule property to t'ather of the respondent. He further submitted that pahanies upto the year 2019 ref'lected the name of the plaintiff as 'pattadar' in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.0l guntas and only in IB Namuna ROR, dated 29.08.2020, the extent of land owned by respondent/plaintilf has been mentioned as Acs.2.33 guntas, therefore, there was no occasion fbr the respondent to file an application for amendment o1'exrenr of the suit schedule property which is owned by the respondcnt. He further submitted that the counsel for respondent while veri[ing the facts of the case has noticed that an extent of Ac.0.27 guntas was acquired by the - MANU/ fll0116/2022 'ttaNUlsc/o2oo/20t.) 6 la l.tl' .\o ():: ol :tD j Govemment for SRSP canal and also for laying Jangaon to Suryapet road and Iurther, an extent of Ac.0.23 guntas \4,as sold by respondent to third parlies after tiling of the suit and thus. ir. neccssitated tlie respondent to file application for amendment and thcre is no intentional lapse on the part ol respondent in filing thc application and thus, prayed to dismiss the Revision as the sarne is devoid of any

9. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is relevant. to ret-er to sequence of events which are relevant lor aLljLrdication ol the present Revision (i) That the respondent has alienated a total c\tenl ol Ac.l.00 guntas in lavour of third parties, i.e, Ac 0. l0 guntas. vide document bearing No. 1458/2000, dated 0.1.05.2000, another Ac.0. l0 guntas vide document bearing No.1459i2000, dared

04.05.2000 and Ac.0.20 guntas vide ( ocurrcnt bearing No. 1 460/2000, dated 04.05.2000 (ii) In the month of September, 2012, the respondent filed the suit-OS.No.24 of 2012 (re-numbered as OS.No. 167 of 2016), against revision petitioners for perpetual injuncrion tn respect o1' land admeasuring Acs 4. l3 guntas in 1 l,\'tl. J (-Rl' .\o.D7 of :0)5 Sy.No.474 (4741A), situated ar Vardhamankota Village, Arvapally Mandal, Nalgonda District. (iii) In the month o[ December, 2012, defendants/revision petitioners herein filed written statcment in OS.No.24 of 2012 (re-numbered as OS.No. I 67 ol20 I 6), dcnying the suit claim and also contended rhat the gifi deed rvas obtained by the respondent herein by playing tiaud. (iv) On 13.02.2014, the respondent tlled alfidavit in lieu of chief examination as P.W- t and got marked documents on her behalf. (r) In the meanwhile, on 16.tO.2Ol4, rhe revision petitioners herein filed suit in OS.No.28 ol 20 t4 (re-numbered as OS.No.24 of 2021) against the respondenr fbr. cancellarion ofgift deed vide document bearing No.5260/1999 and they have specifically mentioned that respondent has alienated an extent of Ac. I .00 guntas, i.e., Ac.0. t 0 guntas, vide document bearing No. 1458/2000, dated 04.05.2000, another Ac.O.10 guntas vide document bearing No.1459/2000, dated

04.05.2000 and Ac.0.20 gunras vide documenr bearing No. 1460/2000, dated 04.05.2000, and furrher, an extenr of 8 a tU ,\o t):) ol:t): j - Ac.0. l0 guntas was acquired by the Covemnrent for SRSP Canal vide Arvard proceedings datt:d 16.07.2007 and thcrefbre, thc r.evision petitioners arc in posscssion ol remaining extent of Acs.2.33 guntas onJy in Sy.No.474 and cultivating the same. (vi) In the month ol October, 2014, in th,: suit-OS.No.2g of 2014 (re-numbered as OS.No.24 of 202l), the respondent filed written statement and therefore, by the said datc itself , thc respondent was aware of the acquisition ol land by the Goventment for SRSP canal. (vii) On 16.10.2024, the respondent filed IA.l'1o 482 of 2024 lor arnendment olthe suit schedule property i.e., alier about tcn ycars from the date of fiting of the suit by the revision petitioners herein and written statement bv respondcnt in OS.No.28 of 2014 (re-numbered as OS.N,r.24 ol202l ).

10. Furlher, in the affrdavit, filed in suppoft of. the application, the respondent except saying that on the previorrs day, while her counsel was veri$ing the facts of the case, he carre to know that a part of the land is not deleted from the suit sche<lule property and thus, it has become necessary to amend the plaint, no explanation is () t RP \'ot))7 ot:D) olfered by her for the inordinate delay in filing the application lor amendment, that too, after ten years of filing of chief--affidavit as P.W- I in the suit filed by her. ll. l{ere, it is the apt to refer to Order VI Rule 17 CPC which reads as under:- "Order VI Rule ]7 of the CPC deals witlt the antctuluent of pleadings. It alloi,s a Courl to permil eillrcr partv lo olter or amend lheir pleadings al a,ly sloge 01' tlrc proceedings, provided it is necessary for determining tlrc reol questions in conlroversy between the parlies ottd doesn't cause injuslice or prejudice to lhe other pur1'. The rule aims to ensure that cases are decided on their merits by allowing necessary amendments, even iJ'the1' are requested after the initial.filing. Provided lhat no applicalion for amendntenl shall be allowed after the lrial has commenced, ttnlcss lhe Court comes to the conclusion lhat inspile of due diligence, the pdrty could not have raised the mdlter before the commencemenl oJ tria1."

12. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC clear'ly mandates that amendment of pleadings shall not bc allowed alter trial has commenced unless the party is able to show that inspite of due diligence it could not take steps for amendment prior to commencement of trial. .- l0 L\,1, J t't?l' \'o 9:7 of )0:5 I 3. Thus, the above narrated sequence of ev,:nts would disclose that even belore filing of the suit-OS.No.24 of 2(tl2 (re-numbered as OS.No.l67 of 2016), way back in the year 2000 irself, rhe respondenr alienatcd an extent of Ac. i .00 guntas of land in S,v.No.474 in lavour of third panies, thc details ol which are mentioneci supra. and she was also aware ol. acquisition ol part of land in Sv.No 474 by the Covemment for SRSP canal and that apart, in the light of the pleadings in OS.No.28 of 20 l4 (re-numbered as r)S.No.24 ol 2021) filed by thc revision petitioncrs herein against the respondent herein, wherein it is specifically mentioned that available land in Sy.No.474 IS onll Acs.2.33 guntas and that the revision petitioners arc ln possession of the same, the version of the resporrdent/plaintifT that only the dav prior to liting of thc application fbr amendmenr, whilc verifying the case facts, her counsel realized that part of land has to be deleted liom the suit schedule properry in OS.N,o.l67 of 2016, is not believable and her conduct does not inspire confidence in this Court

14. Further, in all the three judgments, which are cited supra, relicd upon by lcamed counsel for revision petitioners, it is consistently held that Order VI Rule I 7 of C PCt prevents an L\,1, J CRP .\:o rt of )t): j application lor amendment of pteadings being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Couft comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the pafty could not have raised the matter bclore the commencement of 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 atnendment after commencement of trial to show that inspite of due diligence, such an arnendment could not have been sought earlier.

15. From the above narrated sequence of events, this Courl is of conclusive opinion that respondent failed to show that inspite of due diligence, she could not file application for amendment belbre commencement oi trial and hence, she is not entitled for indulgence of this Cout.

16. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid factual aspects of the case vis-d-vis proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC and erroneously allowed the application fbr amendment, which is per se illegal and improper and accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside 12 ('kt'i\'o92t .[202j

17. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allc,*ed and the order dated 28.02.202-s in tA.No.482 of 2024 in OS.No. I 67 oi'2016 on the file of Senior Civil .ludge, Suryapet is hereby ser aside.

18. Misce llaneous petitions pending, if any, :.hall stand closed. No costs SD/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ sECTloN oFFlcER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, SuryaPet' 2. One CC to SRI SHYAM S AGRAWAL Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI DR. KADIRI KRISHNAIAH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies GR/gh HIGH COURT DATED:1410812025 ORDER CRP.No.927 of 2025 o 0 I SEP 2c25 O r.l2tr: ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 1 1q lpr