The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay trial in the suit bearing O.S. No. 47 of 2018, by the Xll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, pending disposal of the CR ) justice and pass interest of Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S. MALLA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI K.VENUMADHAV Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: SRI M.MEHBOOB ALI Counsel for the Respondent NO.3:None appeared. The Court made the following: ORDER iI HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CRP .No.2354 of 2024 ORDER: . This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 passed in IA.No.167 of 2020 in O.S'No'47 of 2018 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereunder the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the prayer in the plaint by adding the prayer of declaration of titte as well as in relevant places in the plaint, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri S.Malla Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for respondent No'1 and Sri M.Mehboob Ali, learned counsel for respondent No'2'

3. The revision petitioners are ptaintiffs and respondent Nos' 1 to 3 are defendant Nos.l to 3 in the suit' For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit'

4. The suit was originally filed by plaintiff No' I and during the pendency of the suit, she expired, as such, ptaintifTNos'2 to 5 were impleaded as her legal representatives in the suit' The facts of the case, in brief, required for adjudication of 5. thrprtsent Revision Petition are that plaintiff No' l filed the suit in 2 LNA, J (.RP. No.2351 oJ 2024 O.S.No.47 of 20lg for recovery of possessicr, damages and perpetual injunction against the defendants in rrr recl of the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.r and 2 entere,r appearance and filed their respective written statements. At that st r 1e, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule I / of CpC vide I.A.No.167 of 2020 for amendment of prayer in thrr :laint. 6. The case of plaintiff No.1, as averred in th, application. is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of rl e suit schedule property, having purchased the same from one \nreddy Janga Reddy through a registered sale deed bearing docu,r ent No.2542 of 1980, dated 05.11.19g0; that her vendor purr: ased the suit schedule property under registered sare deed, det:d 01.07. 195g, bearing document No.962 of 195g, from J.Nar: i nloo Mudiraj, M.Kareemullah and M.Sharfuddin; thai her vendr r. after giving notice under Section 26 of the Urban Lanr (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to the Special officer & competent Authority, [JLC, Hyderabad on 17.06.19g0, execur: lthe sale deed in her favour and thus, she became lawful orv r rr of the suit schedule property and had been in peaceful n rssession and enjoyment of the same. J LNA, J CRP.No.2351 of 2024

6.1. While so when one Bansilal and S.K.Ahmed started interfering with her possession of the suit schedule property, she filed a suit in O.S.No.403 of 2005 on the file of XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for permanent injunction restraining the said persons and the said suit was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2006. When the things stood thus, on 10.02.2017, she received notice with grounds of appeal in CMA.No.22 of 2017 on the file ol XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, through which she came to know that defendant No.t herein filed I.A.No.530 of 2015 in O.S.No.791 of 2015 seeking temporary injunction against her and defendant No.2 herein and two others, wherein defendant No.l herein averred that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document No.1085 of 2013 dated 28.03.2013 executed by one Bachu Praveen Kumar, followed by release deed dated 07.08.2014 executed by P.Prashanthi Reddy, however, the said I.A was dismissed.

6.2. That earlier, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated

02.05.2013 to defendant No.l and P.Prashanthi Reddy (oint 4 LNA, J CRP.No.2j5t of 2021 owner) stating that their vendor has no right, titlt )r lnterest in the suit schedule property. That defendant No. I o ,tained building permission from Cantonment Board vide perm t No.l032 dated 29.07.2015 based on false and fabricated docume rts executed bv persons who have no right, title or interest in rl e suit schedule property and that plaintiff No. I was illegally disp<,r sgssecl from the subject properry by defendant Nos.l and 2. Henr t , plaintiff No. I fited the sLrit for recovery of possession of tl r property, damages and perpetual injunction. 6.3. ptaintiff No. I further averred that in rr: light of the judgment of the Hon'bre Supreme court that i, ; suit fired for possession based on title, the plaintiff is bound to p., ve his/her title and pray for declaration of title of the suit schedul . property, she filed an application vide I.A.No.l67 of 2020under )rder VI Rule l7 CPC for arnendment of prayer in the plaint by a<L ing t.he prayer for declaration of titre and also to declare her as <1.,r rer of the suit suit schedule schedule property. 7 . Defendant Nos. I and 2 filed separate courrt jrs inter alia stating that praintiffs ought to have filed suit for dec,r ration of title, possession, etc., within three years from the date or. lenial of titre 5 LNA, J CRP.No.2351 o12024 of plaintiff No.l, i.e., fiom 29.06.2013, on which date defendant No.l issued reply notice categorically denying her title and hence, the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title is barred by limitation and only to fill up the lacunae, the application for amendment is filed, which is untenable and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. The trial Court, on due consideration of the pleadings of both the parties and the arguments advanced by their respective learned counsel, dismissed the application with an observation that the written statements filed by the defendants in the year 2018 itsetf are notice to the plaintiffs about the objection raised by defendants that the ptaint without seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable, yet no steps were taken by the plaintiffs from

02.04.2018 till 29.11.2019 i.e., almost one year eight months. The trial Court further observed that plaintiff No.l has pleaded that she has hled O.S.No.403 of 2015 against the same defendants seeking perpetual injunction and it was decreed on 12.10.2006, however, she has not whispered when she was allegedly dispossessed and therefore, in view of the same, the limitation runs from 12-10.2006 and adding the prayer of declaration of title at this stage, would 6 LNA, J :RP.No.235t of 2024 simply mean that the praintiff is trying to overcorr: the limitation period of three vears, as per Article 5g of the L r ritation Act, to seek the declaration of title and that no reason wh l soever is given by the plaintiffs for nor taking steps tlll 2020, tlr ugh the suit is filed in the year 201g. Aggrieved by the said orrer, the present Revision Perition is filed.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petiL tners/ptaintiffs submitted that cause olaction for filing the suit aro; r in November, 2012 when plaintiff had visited the suit schedu r property and found that one Bachu praveen Kumar, repres :nted by one B.Pramod, had unlawfully occupied the said proper.. . 9.1. Leamed counsel further submitted that as p: Article 64 of the Limitation AcL 1963, the timitation period fbr iiling suit for possession of imntovable property based on pre\ r us possession and not on title is 12 years lrom the date of disl ossession. He further submitted that in the instant case, plairr iff No.2 was dispossessed of suit schedule property in Novembrr ZO12 and the suit was filed in the year 201g for the relief ,r recovery of possession, which is well within limitation. He fu_ rer submitted that if the present application for amendment of pra,r r in the plaint -^ 1 LNA, J CRP.Na.2351 of 2024 is allowed, the plaintiffs' suit for recovery of possession of the suit schedule propefty would be based on title, for which the limitation prescribed in Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act is applicable, which is 12 years from the date when the possession of defendant become adverse to the plaintiff, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the said aspect in proper Perspective and erred in dismissing the application filed for amendment of prayer in the plaint, by erroneously referring to Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act which has no application to the present case

9.2. l-eamed counsel further submitted that the amendment sought is necessary to bring the pleadings in line with the actual cause of action, particularly, with respect to the date of dispossession, which is crucial for adjudicating the question of limitation.

9.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit is still at the initial stage, i.e., issues are yet to be framed and the trial has not yet commenced, therefore, if the proposed amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, as they will have a full and fair opportunity to contest the suit on all available grounds. 8 s... LNA, J CRP.No.2354 of 2021

10. Leamed counsel for. revision petitior t rs/ptaintiffs, in support of his aforesaid contentions, has relied uJx n the following judgments of the Hon,ble Apex Court:_ (l) Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and anotherl (z) nalesn Kumar Aggarwar and others vs. r .K. Modi and othersz (3) N.Thajudeen Vs. Board Tamil Nadu Khadi ond l/tl oge Industries

11. 7n Sompath Kumor,s case (cited supra), thr Hon,ble Apex Court observed as hereunder: "Pre-trial amendments are allowed more libert llv than those which are sought lo be made tt, ier the commencenrcnt of the trial or afler conclusion th: eof ,, 12. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwol,s case (cit:1 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as hereunder: "The object of the rule is that Courts should tr.y tk , merits of the case that come before them anrl shottld, allow all omendments that n av be necessary for determining the real question in cottt'ov€rSl consequentb,, I AIR 2oo2 sc 3369 ' AIRt005,sc i647 3 2024 (6) ALr s3 (sc) 9 LNA, J CRP.No.2354 of 2024 between the parties, provided it does not cause iniuslice or prejudice to the other side.

13. In N.Thajudeen's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: " Though the limitation for filing a suit for declaration of title is three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues as per Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitatiotl Act, but.[or recovery of possession based upon title, lhe limitation is 12 years from the date the possession of the defendant becomes adverse in terms of Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. "

14. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No.l/defendant No.l submitted that the amendment of plaint by inserting the prayer for declaration of title is barred by limitation and the trial Court has appreciated the same in respect of the facts of the case in a proper perspective and rightly dismissed the application and hence, the impugned order requires no interference by this Court and accordingly, the Revision Petition, being devoid of merits, is Iiable to be dismissed.

14. 1 . Leamed counsel for respondent No. l/defendant No. 1 support of his aforesaid contentions, has relied upon the judgment 10 LNA, J , 'RP.No.2351 of 2024 .- \-'.=r,E \l \ of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nikhila Divyang Mtt ta and anr Vs. Hitesh P.Sanghvi and orsa. 15. ln Nikhila Divyang Mehrd,s case (cited su I .a), the Hon,ble Apex Court observed as hereunder: "The relief of declaration claimed in the suit ot L, tnd does not foll under Articles 56 and 57 and, the" lbre, by necessary implication, Article 58 would staru, Tttracted which provides for a limitotion period of thru e ),ears to obtain ary other decloralion olltcr than that q entioned under Articles 56 and 57. It provides that .i.. such a declaration, the limitation is three ),ear.s fit,t t the date when the right lo sue first occrues.

16. Leamed counsel for respondent No.2i I :fendant No.2 submitted that plaintiffs filed multiple aplr Lcations, vide I.A.No.167 of 2020 and I.A.No. 1395 of 2023 ir the above suit from time to time seeking for amendment of plain rnd it is settled law that filing of repeated applications for the s I ne and similar reliefs is nothing but an act ofabuse of process of-le ,r,, and as such, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application i nd the revision petitioners failed to point out any illegality in the inpugned order 4 2oz5 uve LAW (sc) 428 ?. LNA, J CRP.No.2351 oI 2021 warranting interference by this Court and hence, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

16.1. Leamed counsel lurther submitted that defendant No.2 is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 06.12.2007 and in spite of knowledge of the said fact, the plaintiff filed the suit originally without seeking declaration of title and even otherwise, with the Iapse of time, a lawful right has accrued to defendant No.2. He further submitted that the plaintifl has utterly failed to make out a tenable case for seeking the proposed amendment of plaint and prayed to dismiss the Revision.

17. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for defendant No.2 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation af India Vs. Sanieev Builders Pvl. Ltd and anolhers.

18. ln Sanjeev Builders's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as hereunder: "A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: s (2022) 16 scc 1 t2 \. LNA, J a'RP.No.23 54 of 2024 By the amendment, a time_barred clair;t i.r sought to be introduced, in which case the fact tha, the claim would time-barued becomes a relevant l,,ctot. .for consideralion. The amendment changes the nature of the suit The prayer for amendment is malafide, nr By the amendmen!, the other side loses a valict ,,efence. ,, 19. This Court has bestowed its eamest con; deration to the submissions advanced by leamed counsel for bot I the parties and thoroughly perused the entire material available or .ccord vis_d_vis the submissions advanced by leamed counsel for b r h the parties. 20. As per the plaint pleadings, the cause of acri rn for fiting the suit arose from the alleged dispossession of t re ptaintiff in November 2012. As per Articre 64 of the St hedure to the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation for filing srrit lbr possession based on previous possession is twelve ( l2) years I om the date of dispossession.

21. Furthermore, it is to be noted that b.., allowing the plaintiffs' application for amendment of the prayer. n the plaint by inserting the relief of declaration of title, the plrLi rtiffs, suit for recovery ol' possession would be necessarily ba; d on title, in which event, Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limi r tron Acr. 1955 13 LNA, J CRP.No.2351 oJ 2021 squarely applies, wherein the limitation prescribed is twelve (12) years from the date when the possession ofthe defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff and as such, the contention of the defendants that by the present amendment application, the plaintiffs are seeking to fill up the lacunae is not tenable'

22. In Sanjeev Builders's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: " Delay in applying for amendmenl alone is not a Sround to disallow the proyer. I{here the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, lhe Court is required to be liberal in its approach. The Court is required to bear in mind lhe fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the cose sct up in amendment.

23. It is relevant to note that it is the case of the plaintiffs that title of plaintiff No.l to the suit schedule property dates way back 1980, i.e., vide registered sale deed bearing Document No.2542 of 1980, dated 05.11.1980, executed by Anreddy Janga Reddy and that the said vendor had, in tum, purchased the property through a rogiq5:red sale deed dated 01.07.1958, bearing document No.962 of t4 \ LNA, J CRI'.No.23i4 oj 2024 1958, from J.Narsimloo Mudiraj, M.K: .eemullah M.Shartuddin It is also their case that their vcrr, or had issued a notrce under Section 26 of the Urban Lan I (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, to the SO & CA, tIL(. Hyderabad, on 17.06.1980, before executing the sale deed in flr our of plaintiff No. I . Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs regarding t[ r chain of title in favour of plaintiff No.l is based on the registered tl, cunrenrs. 24. The plaintiff earlier filed suit O.S.No1( i o1. 2005 for perpetual injunction against one Bansilal and S.li Aluned, which was decreed in her favour on 12.10.2006 and t c appeal filed against rhe said decree, vide C.M.A.No .22 of 2(l 7 is pending. Subsequently, the plaintiff became aware that defir dant No. I had filed suit oS. No.79r of 2015 against her and tw. others and she was set ex parte in that suit. 25. In view of the objection raised by the deli: Ldants that the suit is not maintainable without seeking the declara ory reliel_, the amendment to the plaint to incrude the prayer fo' declarati., of title becomes necessary for proper adjudication of t re issues. The amendment sought for by the plaintiffs in fact, does r ot introduce a :7 l5 LNA, J CRP.No.2354 of 2021 new cause of action but only seeks to comprehend and complete the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

26. Furthermore, it is apt to note that the amendment of prayer in the plaint is sought for by the plaintifls prior to commencement of trial in the suit, i.e., issues are yet to be framed, and as such, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sampalh Kumar's case (cited supra) is squarely applicabte to the instant case, wherein it is held that pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof.

27. Apart from the above, applying the proposition of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raiesh Kumar Aggarwal's case (cited supra), that Courls should try the merits. of the case that come I I before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that I I may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side, it is to be noted that by the proposed amendment of prayer in the ptaint, the /rs between the parties can be adjudicated by framing ofnecessary issues in that regard and no prejudice and injustice can be said to be caused to the defendants' -,.,- t6 LNA, J ()RP.Mt.2354 of 2024

28. In the right ofthe foregoing discussion r rd reasons and also in the light of the settled legal position, this ( ourt is considered opinion that the trial Court erred in dismissing rL: applicarion. 29. Resultantly, this Revision petition is all: r.ed and rhe order dated 07.06.2024 passed in IA.No.l67 of 20j\, in O.S.No.47 of 2018 on the file of the XII Additional Chiet. Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is set aside and consequer .ly, I.A.No. 167 of 2020 stands allowed. However, it is made clear rrat the trial Court shall adjudicate and dispose of the suit, based cr rhe merirs of the suit, uninfluenced by any observations made br. this Court in this

30. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any. ; rall stand closed No costs SD/- K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR :a SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1 . The Xll Additional Chref Juse, City Civil Court, Secun j rrabad 2. One CC to SRt S. MALLA RAO Advocate [OpUC] 3 One CC to SRI K.VENUMADHAV, Advocate [OpUC] 4. One CC to SRt M.Mehboob Ati, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies }WB/?SL HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 ORDER CRP.No.2354 of 2024 ' dE s ,.1/ .\ ($ .i-/ I OEC M t ,0r,. t '.,ut', ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVTSION PETI'I'ON V) V