The High Court · 2025

:Smt. V PREETI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent.G: M. VIJAY KUMAR GOUD Counsel for the Respondent.2,3,4,5,7,8 9: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER I I I i. l , ,.? /./ a:,. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1910 OF 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

18.04.2023 in LA.No.68 of 2023 in O.S.No.254 of 2015 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, at L.B. Nagar

2. Heard Ms. Preeti Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court

4. Originally, petitioner filed suit for perpetual injunction against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, however, during the pendency of present revision, respondent No.1 expired, and the legal heirs are brought on record as respondent Nos.7 to9.

5. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that petitioner filed O.S.No.254 of 2015 for perpetual injuncbion against respondent Nos.1 to 6, in respect of Plot No.8 in survey No.763 /2, admeasuring 1000 Sq.yards, situated at Mailaredevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereafter referred as scheduled property). Petitioner entered into agreement of sale on 23.12.7986 with the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to 2 CRP No 19l0 .'rir.:: -a*;, purchase schedule property and agreed to pay total sum of Rs.12,000/- as sale consideration

6. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner filed I.A.No. 68 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to permit the plaintiff to arnend the plaint as follows: i) 1'o substitute the utords Plot No.9 instend of Plot No.8 in second line first pnra of the Plaintif. il After tlrc u,ords in.fourth line after the schedule property ruitlin boundtries North:PloL No.10: South:4}' u,ide Rotd, East:3O rttide Rond and West: Plot No. 22 ott plot N0.9, iil To substitute to ndd ruord plot No.9 after tlrc date 09-09-2014 itr parr No.5 o.f thc plnint. ir,) The snle deed No.6863 instend of sale deed No.3879 in secorul line of 6tt' para of pltiut. u) Tle uord .for cancclLation of registered sale deed the document No.3849/2014, dntcd 13.10.2014 nre to be dcleted at the end of pnrn No.8 of the plnint. ri) The utords sale deed docunent NO.18792014 to be deleted nnd tlrc u,ords sale decd document No.5863/20L4 is to be inserted. oii) Tltc atord docunrcnts NO.2879/2014 to be deleted nnd substituted by rutords docuntcttt NO.6863/2014 in court fee para. v|il) In prnycr ltortiott: ruords cnncelhtiott of Registcred Sale Deed No.38979/2014, datcd 12/10/2014 before the %tb-Registrar of Rnjttulrmngnr, R.R. District, Telnngam State to be deleted.

7. In the saicl application, it is contended that a criminal case was filed by the petitioner as the respondent No.6 demolished the compound wall and room. In that regard Cr.No.633 of 2014 was registered by the police statior-r and charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.117 of 2015 which disclosed that plot purchased by the plaintiff is not located in Plot No.8 within the boundaries mentioned in agreement of sale but it is located in plot No.9. Therefore, in view I I I i i i i i I I I I l I I I I /a 3 LNA,J, CRP No.19l0 of2023 of the said subsequent disclosure of fact, it necessitated the petitioner to file amendment application vide I.A.No.68 of 2023

8. Respondent No.6 filed a counter stating that petitioners are claiming plot No.8, but the boundaries of the same are different from the boundaries of PIot No.9. It is absolutely false and incorrect to allege that the petitioner had agreed to purchase the identified plot with boundaries as shown by the respondents 1 to 3 and paicl the totai sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- and has been in physical possession of the schedule property. It is further contencled that if the amendment sought by the petitioner is allowed, it amounts to complete change of nature of the suit. Hence, at this stage amendment being sought by the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is liable to the dismissed.

9. Trial court on appreciation of pleadings and contention dismissed the application with following observations: "...It is also admitted claim and assertion of the petitioner tlut the basis for ltis prayer for amendment is that he lnd learnt tlnt tlrc property tlnt ruas sold ruas known through inoestigation by police in Cr.No.633 of 2014, that the plot number that ruas sold toas not plot No.8 but it tttns plot No.9. Be, it noted that tlrc oery core of the petitioner/pLaintiff claim is that le lud purchased plot NO.8 the snnte is his plea nnti pleadings froru 2015 onzoards, thus about eight ,yenrs hnae eLapsed. That apart obttiously plot No.8 I 9 are quite distinct zoith distinct bourulnries. At this stage of the petitioner gets i 4 CR? No.l9l0 allorued to anrcnd tlrc plaint, tlrc Tery nature and prayer of the suit undt,r goes n plenomenal clmnge tlut too it causes prejudict to tlu resporulent. Lmo is settled that an anrcndment ruhich clnnges tht rnture o.f tlrc suit and tle relief cnnnot be peruitted to be alloued, tttot'(o?er ultn tlrc ntnendnett nlters tlrc admissions or specific stonrl of tlrc parties, it is tlrc requirenrcnt of not.onLy ktttt but also of public poticy. Therefore, ttieutcd frou nny oJ the stand points, the petitiott is deooid of merit nnd force and is liable to be disntissed."

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that trial court has not ploperly appreciated the reasons for which the application was filed and further contended that basing on the investigation of the police, the petitioner came to know about actual plot number, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the.amendment application. It is further contended that thc proposed amendment does not amount to change of nature of the suit, except change of plot number and boundary, however, other pleadings and contentions will remain the same, but, u,ithout considering the same, the trial court dismissed the application erroneously and contrary to the settled principle of Iaw. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Diuesh Goyal @ Papu Vs Sutnan Agaru-tal (Bindal), wherein it is held that application for amendment can be filed at any stage of the suit. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition ,'6 5 I,NA,J, CRP No.l9l0 of202l

11.. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that trial court after appreciation of the contentions and pleadings put forth I by the parties has come to a right decision in dismissing the application. He further contended that suit is filed in the year 2015, whereas application for amendment was filed in the year 2022 i.e., about seven years from the investigation of the police in Cr.No.633 of 2014. It is further contended that as rightly observed by the trial court if amendments sought by the petitioner are permitted, it amounts to complete change in nature of the suit and schedule property itself would be replaced. Therefore, this revision is devoid of merits and hence liable to be dismissed

12. A perusal of the record discloses that suit for perpetual injunction was filed by the petitioner on 31.03.2015, restraining respondents from entering into the schedule property basing on an agreement of sale. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it is categorically stated that no such agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, it appears that petitioner filed criminal case in Cr.No. 633 of 2014, by the respondent No.6 for demolition of the compound wall and police after investigation filed C.C.No.117 of 2025, wherein it was observed that plot purchased by the petitioner is not located in plot No.S, but it is located in plot No. 9 with different boundaries. Basing on -/ I I I I 6 the same, petitioner filed amendment application seeking amendment for replacing plot number and boundaries and arso sought to cancel the sale deed. The suit is filed for injunction in respect of portion of plot No.8 and if tire amendment sought for by the petitioner is permitted, it would amount to complete change of proper.ty itself, which in consideled opir-rion of this Court cannot be permitted and as rightly observed by ttre hial court it amounts io change in nafure of the suit and replacing of the property, morc so, when suit is f ed onrv for rn;unction implicitor. 13. In view of the above peculiar facts and circurnstances of the case, the facts in the present case and the facts in the aforesaicl iudgment of are completely different, whereas, amendment application was filed to include some more immovable property to the schedule property. But i, the present case, petitioner is seeking replacement of schedule property, which cannot be permitted. Therefore, this court cannot find any irregularities in the order passed by the trial court. 74. Accorclingly, Civil Revision petitio, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The xl Additionar District and sessions Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District CTION OFFICER ;WryxKKrx:;xryr'' .-:::-E 2 4 One CC to Smt. V PREETI REDDY Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRl. tt/. Vijay Kumar Goud, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies TLlPSUgh Y< iue s r"1 t a \J () T 2 5 JUL 2025 u) A l2.r,1r;PI <) * HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 \ \ ORDER CRP.No.1910 ot 2023 DISMISING THE C.R.P b ,ef'" vr, - .{.A2