The High Court · 2025

ORDER I{eard Mr. Krishrra Kishore Kowuri. learnecl counscl firr the pctitioner and Mr. Gummala Bhaskar Reddy, leamed counsc[ fbr [he respondent.

2. 1'he present revision is filcd by the petitioner chaltenging Lhe order dated .3 1.01.2025 passed by I Additionat .runior civil .rud-se, Karimnagar in I.A.No.2 i7 of 2021in O.S. No.l ;93 ot 2022 alio.,i ing the applicar-ion firecl bi, the respondent hcrein under ordcr _ vI. Ir:rie _ I 7 of CI,C to amend rhe plaint.

3. Ihe petitioner herein is defendant in the albrcsaid suit, \\,hile thc respondent is plaintifi .l.he respondent llled the suit agains: the pctitioner seekine per-petual injunction in respect of [anc! aclmearuring 363 square yards in Sur-vey No.g29, sihrated at Chenjarla \riilag.: of. Manakondur I\4andal. Karimnagar District (horcinaftcr rci_crretl ro .rs 'suit schedule property..). Whcn the saicl suit is comu.rg riir 1br scttlcment, the respondcnt filed an Interlocutory Application t,ic.le j.A. No.237 o{ 2021 under Order _ VI, Rule _ 17 of CpC ro amenC rhe piaint conl.ending as follows: z Kt.,l CRP No 1098 of2025 i. fle filcd the subject suit lor perpetual injunction' fhe same is coming up lbr settlement' ii. iii. After fiting the subject suit' the petitiono herein claimed that plaintifl-'s earlier suit filed for pcrpetual injunction vide O'S' No.233 of 2013 was dismissed and <lenied his right over the suit sohedule Property' ' iv. Ilowever, his previous counsel informed him that his earlier suit rvas decided in his lavour and that the family mcmbers of thc petitioner admitted his titte and possession ovcr the suit schedule Property' v. 'lhe petitioner's property was acquired hy the Govemment lor the purpose ol widening of National Highn'ay and she \^'as paid the cornPcnsation' l'i'Ilvcnthen.thepetitioneristryingtoenlerintothepropertyof the respondcnt illegalty by denying his title' r,ii. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the plaint seeking thc relief of declaration of titte and perpetual injunction in place of perpetual injunction.

4. Whereas, the petitioner herein filed counter opposing the claim ilad'e by the respondent herein contending as follorvs: =7 /l KI-,,I CRP No l09S ot 2t):i llr. IV . Earlier suit in O.S. No.233 of 2013 filed by the respondenr for pcrpetual in junction was dismissed an 06.11.201j holciing that thc respondcnt did not describe the boundaries pr.opcrll. and rhat he tailed ro establish his title. 'rhc respondent hercin fircd trrt- subject suit with tilc ver'same allegations. 'l'he respondent herein did not file any document to provc his title over thc suit schedule property. The boundarics mentioned in the suit schcdule property ancl the houndaries mentioned in thc sale <ieed bearing documcnt No.56.16 of2012 of thc respondcnt arc Cifferent. Prcviously the vendor of thc petitioner herein filecl a suji vide 0.S. No.456 oI' 2002 in respcct of rhe land in Si,.No.829. admcasuring 345 square yards of the same Vilrage berbre the Principal Junior Civll Jurige. Karimragar against rhe delbncianrs therein lor perpetuar injunctio. and the said suit ri as decreed in favour ofthe Vendor of the petitioner herein. vt. The petitioner hcrein purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0.05 guntas in Sun ey No.829 from Muddasani Eshrvaraiah through a simple sale deed in thc 1.ear I9g2, out of ,w.hich. thc pctitioner 4 KI-.J CRP No.l098 oi2025 sotd Ac.0.02 guntas to one Mr' Bairi Ramutu and for the balance of Ac'0'03 guntas' the pctitioner herein obtained a registered sale dced bearing document No 40 of 2001' dated \,11

03.01 .200 I Thc petitioner herein constructed a housc in the said land after 'lhus' the obtaining Perrnlsslon lrom the Gram Panchayat nctrtloner herein became absolute o\lner' possessor enjol"ment of the suit Iand' 5. On hearing both sides' vide order dated 3l '01 2025' leamed trial Court allowed the said application holding that the trial in the suit is not yet commenced, though basic structure of suit is going to bo altered i,vith the proposed amendrnent' In order to avoid future iitigation, and that no prejudice would be causecl to thc petilioner hcrein. the request oi'the respondent herein can be considered'

6. Challenging the said order' dated 31 01'2025' the petitioncr hercin - defendant hlcd thc present revision contcnding that the proposed amendment is nothing but an abuse of process of [aw; that there is limitation fbr seeking relief of declaration and in the present suit. such limitation starts from the date of filing written statemcnt in O.S:-No.233 of 2013 Therefore' such relief is totally tirne barred. ." {- ',:., .5 (L,J CRP No t09S ol : rti without conside'ing the said aspects. the trial Court errcd in alror.i,inE thc arnendmcnt petition

7. \L,hcreas. lcamed counscl ior the r.espondent _ plainliff would conrend that thc plaintiff is seeking to amcnd the plaint fbr rhc rclief of declaration of titte, and by ailorving such amendmen[, though there would l-re change olnature of suit. no prejudice u,ould be caused to the petitioncr - dcfendant. C)n consideration of the said aspects only. vide impugned ordcr datcd 31.01.2025, thc trial Court allou,ccj the said I.A. No.237 of 2024. .fherc is no error in it. With the said submissions. hc sought to dismiss the present revision.

8. [n the light of the arbrcsai<i discussion, it is rerevant to nore that the respondent - plaintilf is claiming that he is the absolute or.vner and possessor ol- the lan<j adrneasuring 363 square yards in Sy.No.g29. situated at Chenjarla Village of Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District. on thc strength ol regislcred sale deed document No.5646 ol 201 2. datctl I 6.08.201 2 exccuted b1 Mucldasani Eshwaraiah. ln thc said sale decd. boundaries are mentioned as lirllorvs: East: Land belongs to Vendor Wcst: P\['D Road lJorth: Land bclongs ro lVlorapalll yellarecldy South: Land bclongs io ts. Larmirailrn 6 KI-.J CnP N..o 1098 ol20lt

9. The respondcnt herein - plaintiff hacl filed a suit in O S' No.233 o12013 against the petitioner herein - defendant and 2 others includingthesaiciBollabathulaLaxmira.|amfbrperpetualin]unctionin respect o[ lhe vory sanle properry' tn the said suit' the trial Coutt Lianred thc lbllou ing issucs: l. Whcther the plainLiff has described the plaint schedule mentioued ProPCrty u'ith ProPer boundaries?

2.Whctlrertheplaintilfisentitledlbrthereliefofperpetualin]unction? l0.trlicleJ"tdgnentdated06'11'2017'learnedllAdditional .Tunior Civil Judge. Karimnagar' dismissed the said suit holding that thc respoudent hercin - ptaintiff failed to describe the plaint schedule property ri'ith proper boundaries' there woul<l be no qucstion of interf-erence by the det'endanl-s therein with the possession of thc plaintifl over [he suit schedute propefty Moreover' thc defendant thercin could cstablish his possession and title over some other the hclp of Exs'Bl to B-14 and from the cvidence of 'fhe trial Court further held that Ex'B I - original salc dced bearing document No 40 of 2001' dated contains a site plan, and it shows that thc land of I)Ws.l to 4. proPcrl,v r'r'ith rcgistered

03.0 I .2001 delendants thcrein is in triangular shape as mentioned in the registered sale decd. as such. the boundary on westem side is show'n in thc 7 l\i-.1 CRP \o 1098 ol21):i registered sale deed and site plan as (.bpinchindi) which mcans there is no boundary at all to the lanci purchascd by the dcf.endants on irs \\,est side. Therefore. lrom thc said finding arrivcd at bv comparison oi both sale dceds. an inl'crence could casily be draun that though both the rcgistered sale deeds rcf-er thc same Sun.e1, No.S29. rhe roral extent and the boundarics in each document are iliffercnt. Hou,evcr, Dx.Bl is superior in iime than ljx.Al i.e., it u,as execured in the 1,ear 2001 and its genuinoness need not bc croubted as the suit filed b_r. the vendor ol the dcfendant lbr perpeturi injunctiun lrulE O S. No.456 of 2002 was also decreed (F,xs.l32 and 83) by learned l,rincipal Junior. Civil Judge, Karirmragar. 'l-hus, w ith thc help ol Exs.B 1 ro B I 4 and oral evidence of DWs.2 to 4. the det-cndants thcrein olinchingly established their title and possession orcr ihe land to an exl_ent of.34j square yards i. Suruer No.829. Thus. the plaintitr has dcscribed thc plaint schedule propcfty u,ithout propcr lroundaries. With the said findings, thc trial Ccurt dismissed lhe suit filed b,v thc respondent _ ptaintiff in O. S NO.23 3 of 20 13 on 06. 1 1 .201 7. I l. Thus, thc said f-rndings u,ould reveal that therc is oloud over the title of the rcspcndent - plaintiff including boundaries. 'l.hc respondent - piaintilT did not prefer an1, appeal challenging the said -.@;,-,,7 i: 8 .XJ.J" ,** ot'0" judgment and decree dated 06' l i 2017 in O'S No.233 ol'2013 [t atuined linalitY

12. Irven thcn' the rcspondent - plaintiff hdd filed the subiect suit i.e., O.S. No.1i93 of 2022 against the petitioner herein . def'endant for perpetual injunction' [n the entire plaint' thcrc is no rncntion about the dismissal olearlier suit fited by him in 0 S' No 233 o12013. He has filecl the prcsent suit simpty and vaguely mcntioning thc cause of action as 08 0!t'2022' "vhereas

13. As discussed above' thc saici suit in O S' No'233 of 2013 fited by the respondent - plaintiff was dismissed on 06 11 2017' he has filed the suhject suit only in September' 2022 simply mentioning thc cause of action as 0809 2022 seeking perpetual injunction basing on the ver'v same sale deed mentioning the very same boundaries l'heretbre' the prcsent suit is hit by res iudicata' I lorvever. it is fbi rhc trial Court to decide the said aspect on tho application filed by the petitioner - defcndant'

14. lt is relevaut to note that the petitioner herein - defendant had llled wrrttcn statement in the subject suit i'e ' O'S' No'li93 of 2022 on 19.10.2022 stating that the respondent - plaintiff filed a suit carlier i.e., O.S. No 233 o1 2013 seeking for perpetual injunction and --] 1!7;; "7' ' ,',. { ,ia.' 9 KI,,J CRP No l09S ol..r02i dismissal of the same on 0(.).t 1.20 j7. Even rheu, the respondcnt herein - plaintiff filed I.A. No.2j7 of 2024 only on 24.04.2024. 1 5. in thc plaint filed in O. S. No. 1 193 ot 2022,Lhe respondenr herein - plainriff failed to menrion aboul the carlicr suit O.S. No.233 of 2013 ancl dismissal o1, thc same. Thus, l_here is suppression ol fiict. i.e., filing o1- earlier suit and its dismissal b1,thc rcspondcnt _ plainrilT. IIe has filed the aloresaid I.A. No.2j 7 of 2024seeking amcndmcnr of plaint contending that the petitioner dcnicd his tiLre in ear.rier suit i, O.S. No.233 of 2013. Her proper[, r.r,as acquired by rhe [iovemrnent for the purpose of widening of Nationat I{ighrvay. She has receivcd compensation from the Government and nou,she is tn,ing to interti:re with his property denying his title. r.hcreforc, he sought amcncinent of plaint

16. There is no quanel with regard to rhe [egal position that amendment can be alowed at any sta_{e of thc suit.. rhc dominant purpose of allowing the amendmcnt is to minimize the lirigarion antl to dccide the real controversy. Referrin-e to various .f udgrnents ol the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Courl in Oruganti Ram ulu r,. p. IO KI-.J CRP No i()98 of2025 Ravindar Goudr held amendment to the pleadings should be allowed liberally when the proposed amcndment is necessary for determination of real question in controvers'v between the parlies This Court held as follows "Arner.tdment can be ailowed at any stage of the suit' Domiuant purpose of' allorving amendment is to minimize litigation and ro decide real controversy ln the present case.thcrear0t$,ooptionstoptaintilf(i)lrlingoffreshsuit seekingc.Ieclararionoltitleanclperpetualirrjrrrrctionand(ii) seeking amcnciments amcnding the piaint from perpetual injuncLion to dcclaration of title' Whcn flling of fiesh suit is permissible, it is equally permissible to seek amendment of tt . plui.,t as hetd by the Flon'ble Apcx Court in 2022 (6) ALD 6l (SC) (Para 26) " 17. ln Abdul Rehman v' Mohd' Ruldu2' the Apex Court held as under: "15 Wc reiterate that all amendments which are necessary 1c purpose of detcrmining thc real questlons ln controversy betu'esn the parties should be allou'ed if it does not change the basic nature of the suil' A change in the nature of relief claimed shall no1 be considered as a change in the naturc o[ suit and the pcwer of amendment should be ' zozX:If,t.o rrr t.rs) '. 20 tz 151clc tol ; l1 (t_,J (lR? No 1098 ot:r):i exercised in thc [arger intcrcsts o1'doirg ful] and c.mnrete .;ustice betu,een the parties.,,

18. In State of West Bengal v. pam Developments private limited3, the Apex Courl held that subsequent events connccted to an existing cause of action form a continuous cause ol.action. .fherefore. alnending the plaint to include them does not rcquire a liesh suit ro bc filed. The rcievant paragraph is extracted as under: "24. Ior instance. the rcspondent has uradc a claim tbi an anlount to be paid to it by pcnaiizing ihe appellants for. u.ronglully issuing the first debarment order. lhe subsequent debarment orders all arisc as a part of thc sante event and hence. its effect on thc claim of the rcspondent. if any. must be adjudicated rogether. Accorclinglv, rr,e hold that the subsequent events form a conlinuous cause of action lbr which a fresh suit is not to be llled. as it docs nor change the naturc and character of thc civil suit.,,

19. In Dinesh Goyal @ pappu v. Suman Aganval (Bindal)r. the Apex Court upheld the order of I{igh Court alior.r.ing thc respondent to amend her plaint cvcn altcr trial began to challen_ec the validify of a Will, as it was essentiai to resolve the core propert\ dispute and would not prejudice the appellant. .fhe Court cmphasizecl '. lzozsy t scc rso o. 2024 INSc lzo t2 KL.J CRP No.l098 of2025 a liberal approach undcr Order - Vt Rule - l7 oICPC and reiterated that amendments are to be pemitted if necessary to determine the real controversy' providcd due ditigcnce and absencc of injustice are showt't.

20. In the light ofthe aforesaid principle' coming to the facts of the present case. as discusscd supra' there is no dispute that the subiect suit is at pre-trial stage lt is coming for settlement of issues' The respondent - plaintilT had tiled the aforesaid interlocutory application under Order -VI, Rute - i7 of CPC to amend the prayer in the plaint from seeking the reliel- ol perpetual injunction to the relief of declaration of title an<i for perpetual injunction' 2l.Asdiscussedabove,atthecostofrepetition,thercspondent - ptaintiffhad suppressed carlier suit in O S No 233 ol 2013 filed by him against the pctitioner herein and others and its dismissal on 06.11.2017 with thc tindings mcntioned above' He lras not pret-errcd any appeal challenging thc said judgment and decree' Thus' the said judgment and decree and the findings thercin have attained finality' He has not mentioned the said fact in the plaint filed in the subject suit filed bi, him. Iie has disclosed the sai<l l'act onty in the alfidavit in support of I.A. No.237 of 2O24' : ', t' '.:'"-:. ;' I ..1 i!l-..1 CP\P No 1098 0120)i

22. As discussed above. in the.judgment in O.S. No.233 of. 2013' the trial courl gave spccific finding that the respondent herein failcd to describe plaint schedule propcrty u,ith proper boundaries. J-hus. therc is cloud over the title of the respondent _ plaintifL Therefbre, instead of filing the suit for dcclaration. he has filed the suit for perpetual injunction. that too, suppressing the earlicr suit ancl its dismissal. As discussed above. in the written statemcnt liled by thc petitioner in the subiect suit, shc has specifica,y conr.ended about thc said lacts. Even then, he has filed the prcsent application afier lapse of two (02) years. Thus, the respondent - plaintifl.cli<J not approach thc trial Court r.r ith clean hands. Thercforc. he cannot seek arnendment sought by him in the sub.ject suit O.S. No. I 193 of 2022. 23 ' During thc course of hearing. leamcii counsei fbr thc petitioner - defendant would contend that thc petitioner - dcl.endant has already filed an lnterlocutory Application un<.ler Order - VII. Ruie - I I of CI)C to reject the plaint. In fact, rhe pctirioner litcd copy ot.thc said I.A.

24. Without considering the said aspects, r,lde impugned order dated 31.01.2025, the trial Court allowed the I.A. No.237 o1.2024 oniv ,a t4 o"o" "$!io,o* on thc ground that amcnclment can be allolved at any stage and in the the suit is at pre-triai stage and that there would not be present case, herein. But, the Petitioner has any Prejudice to the Petltloner ication contending that the proposed specitically opposed the said appl n, that there is suppression of earlier amendment is barred bY limitatio suit and that there would be change of nature of suit itsetl' She has also specifically contended about the suit Irted by her vendor in O'S' No.45(l of 2002 in respect of thc land admeasuring 345 square 1-'ards in SurveY No'829 of Chenjerla Viltage and the same was decreed She has purchased Ac 0'05 guntas of land in Survey No 829 from MudclasaniEshu,araiahunderasimplesaledeedintheyearl982,out oll'vl-rioh,shehassoldAc.0.02guntastooncMr.BairiRamuluand for the balanoe of Ac'0 03 guntas' she obtaine<l a rcgistercil sale deed bearing document No40 of 2001' dated 030t2001' She has constructed a house in thc said land alter obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat and with the tjnancial assistance lrom Indiramma l:lousing Schemc. Without considcring the said aspects' the trial Court allo*.cd thc said applioation fi1ed by the respondent' Therefore' thc impugned order is contrary to larv and evidence on record Thus' the -i.j*fitr .,t' -, J (1..1 (lRt \o I098 ol-20t) trial Court committed jurisdictional error is Iiablc to be set aside ilencc, the impugned order

25. lhc prescnt Civil Revision petition is accordingl-v ailor.ved setting asidc thc impugnecl order dated 3 I .01 .2025 passecl b1. learned I Additional .tunior Civil Judge. Karimnagar in I.A.No .237 of 2024 in O.S. No. l 193 of 2022. I.A. No.237 of 2024fi1ed by rhe respondenr hercin - plainriff undcr Order - VI, Rule _ 17 of CpC in O.S. No. I l9l of 202.2 ro amend the plaint is dismissed In the circumstanccs of thc case. there shall be no order as tc costs. As a sequel thcreto, miscellaneous petitions. if an1,, pendine in the revision shall stand closed s {: !: !1...............!(s HM I BA B u DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,,/ //TRUE COPY// secrro\YbrFrcER To,

1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. 2. One CC to SRI KRTSHNA KISHORE KOWURI Advocate loPUCl

3. One CC to SRI GUMMALLA BHASKER REDDY Advocate toPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies (k oR tlE i: 1, , C + L-) D 18 AU6 2025 \ / . ,::1,, HIGH COURT DATED:2310tt2O2S ORDER CRP.No.f 098 of 2025 ALLOWING THE C.R.P. qil- \$ b )\