The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 115 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 in O.S. No. 86 of 2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Huzurabad pending the disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. P, Rajagopal Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: M/s. C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao The Court made the following: ORDER THE HOII'i3LE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL itEVlSlON PETITION No.2491 OF 2025 ORDER Assailing the propriety of the decree and order dated

12.06.2025 passed in l.A. No. 152 of 2025 in O.S. No. 86 ol 2011 by the Court of lhe Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Se:;sions Judge, Huzurabad the present Civil Revision Petition has; been preferred.

2. The revisi,rn petitioners, who are also the plaintiffs in the suit. filed l.A No. 152 of 2025 under Order Vl Rule '17 read with Section '151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, '1908, seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint.

3. Heard M". P. Rajagopal Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and [Vl/s. C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents. 4 1 Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondenUdefendant originally instituted O.S. No. 886 of 201'l seeking a der;ree of perpetual injunction in respect or' the suit I schedule property, namely, dry land admeasuring Ac 5.{)0 guntas ) tn Survey No. 858/D, situated at Keshavapatnam Village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District (hereinafter l referred to as 'the subject land'). During the stage of cross- examination of P.W.1 , the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint, praying for inclusion of an additional relief of declaration of tltle over the subject land, together with recovery of vacant possession.

4.2. The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and the nature of the amendment sought, held that the proposed amendment was essential to facilitate effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties and to obviate the risk of conflicting decisions. Consequently, the Court allowed the application for amendment. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants/respondents have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition

5.1 . Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contends that the trial Court committed a serious error in permitting amendment of the plaint after an inordinate lapse of 14 years, without appreciating that the relief of declaration of title had long since become barred by limitation. lt is urged that, as per J settled principle:; of law, amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial ought not to be permitted unle:;s the applicant demonstrates due diligence, which is conspicr.rously absent in the present case. Counsel further submits that the plea of the plaintiffs/re rsoondents, namely, that they became au,are of the alleged cccupation of the subject land b), the defendants/revisiorr petitioners only at a later stage, is wholly untenable. This is because the written statement filed as early as 2011 explicitly drsclosed the defendants' claim of title and possession over the subject land. Despite such knowledr;e, the plaintiffs remairred silent for nearly '14 years and sought amendment only in 2025, long after expiry of the orescribed period of limitation. lt is therefore argued that rights which accrued in favo rr of the revision petitioners over the intervening period would be s,rriously prejudiced by allowing the anrendment

5.2 Reliance s placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.C H trumanthappa (since deceased) by L Rs. v. H.B Shivakumar. (2016) 1 SCC 332, wherein it was held that an amendment introducing a relief that is already barred by limitation as on the dak: of the application is impermissible On these . grounds, intervention of this Court is sought 4

6.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that at the time of institution of the original suit, and until \ discovery of the defendants' illegal occupation of the subject land. a prayer for perpetual injunction was adequate. However, upon subsequently becoming aware of the defendants' possession over the subject land, it became necessary to seek comprehensive relief by way of declaration of title, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction. lt is argued that the amendment was occasioned by changed circumstances and was filed immediately upon discovery of the relevant facts. Counsel further submits that there is no prescribed period of limitation for seeking amendment of pleadings; on the contrary, it is well settled that amendments may be permitted even at the stage of second appeal, provided they are necessary for complete adjudication 6 2. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others v. Subhash,2025 (1) ALT SC 28, wherein it was held that amendments to the plaint are intended to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and may be allowed at any stage, including execution, if required for comprehensive adjudication ,l

6.3. lt is thus contended that, since the cause 'rf action for amendment arose only upon discovery of the defendants' illegal possession arrd the application was filed promptly thereafter, the plea of limit;rtion advanced by the revision petitioners IS misconcerved C)ounsel further submits that the plaint ffs have been diligentl'r prosecuting the suit and that permitting the amendment would enable a full and final adjudication of all disputes, therr:by preventing multiplicity of litigatiorr lr light of these circumstances, and in conformity with settled judicial principles, it i; urged that the trial Court rightly allowed the application. Ar;cordingly, the challenge raised by the revision petitioners/defe rndants is de.void of merit and liabler to be dism issed.

7. ln the above rival pleadings, the issues fall for consideration a s to. i Wtrether the amendment sought for by the res;pondenUplaintiff is barred by limitation? Whether the plaintiffs satisfied the requrrerrents of du,: diligence under the proviso to Order Vl Rule 17 of ,l P.C 6 It. Whether the trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction allowing the petition to ensure complete adjudication of the dispute. B. Point No. 1: Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 'l 963 prescribes a limitation period of three years for seeking declaratory relief, reckoned from the date on which the right to sue first accrues. The accrual of such right arises not merely upon the existence of a dispute, but only when there is a clear. unequivocal, and effective threat to a party's legal right. This principle has been reiterated in Nikhila Divyang Mehta and Another v Hitesh P Sanghvi & Others,2025 INSC 485 9 lt is equally well settled that the issue of limitation is ordinarily to be adjudicated at the stage of trial, and not at the stage of considering an application for amendment of pleadings, since it involves a mixed question of fact and law. In Sampalh Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2002) 7 SCC 559, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that an amendment to pleadings can be permitted even if it potentially introduces a relief that may be time-barred, because the defence of limitation remains open for adjudication during trial. Therefore, permitting an amendment does not, iqqo 7 facto, validate a claim that may otherwise be barretl; i. merely ensures that thr-, controversy is fully brought before the Cc,urt, with the limitation de,fence left to be determined on merits at trial

10. Point N,r. 2: With respect to the requirement of due diligence, the plaintiffs contend that they became aware of the defendants' unlawful occupation of the suit property only subsequently. rvhich necessitated the present amendment. The defendants, however, argue that their plea of possessron was clearly raised irr the written statement filed in 20'l 1, and tlrerefore the plaintiffs cannot feign ignorance

11. This dispute essentially hinges on the factual qu€)stion of I when the plaintffs gained actual or constructive knowledEre of the defendants' alleged illegal possession. Such nratters are evidentiary in nature and can only be conclusively deterrnined at trial. At the anrendment stage, Courts are guided by a liberal approach. ensuring that parties are not precluded from prr:senting their complete case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has con;istently held that technical objections should not preclude the Court from allowing an an endment where it is necessary to advance the cause of substantive justice. \

12. Point No. 3: The object of Order Vl Rule .1 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to enable the Court to determine the real questions tn controversy between the parties. ln Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanasamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, the Supreme Court laid down guiding principles, emphasizing that amendments should ordinarily be allowed where they: (i) prevent multiplicity of proceedings; (ii) facilitate comprehensive adjudication; and (iii) do not cause prejudice that cannot be compensated in costs 13 Similarly, in Bimla Devi and Others v. Subhash, 2025 (1) ALT SC 28, it was held that amendments necessary for effective adjudication should not be rejected merely on technical grounds

14. ln the present case, refusal of the amendment would compel the plaintiffs to institute a separate suit for declaration and recovery of possession, resulting in parallel proceedings, possible inconsistencies in findings, and unnecessary multiplicity of litigation The trial Court, therefore. rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment so that the entire dispute could be comprehensively adjudicated in a single proceeding 7 To, '1 5. ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is, of the considered opinion that the trial Court exercised its discretion judicially and irr ,lonsonance with settled principles of law. The proposed amendrnent neither alters the fundamental ,:haracter of the suit nor in lroduces a wholly new cause of aciion. lssues relating to limilation, maintainability, and due diligence remain open for adjudication at trial, where they can be deternined on merits

16. Accordinrlly, this Court finds no ground to nterfere in revisional jurisrliction. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the rrder dated 12.06.2025 passed in l.A No. 152 of 2025 in OS llc,. 86 of 2011 by the Court of the llenior Civil Judge-cum-Ass istant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad. The trial Court shall carry out the amendment and proceed to adjudir:ate the suit comprehensively uninfluenced by any observations nradt: herein, and shall disp,l5s of the matter expeditiously. No ordr>r as to COSTS [\Iiscellarreous petitions, if any, pending in the Petiticn, shall stand closed. I SD/. T I;RINIVASA REDDY ASSIIiTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' t\ t\ SE:TION OFFICER '1 . The Senior Civil .Judge cum Assistant Sessions Judge at Huz:urabad 2 One CC to lrilr P. Rajagopal Reddy. Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to lr4/s. C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao. Advocate [OPUCI 4- Two CD CoPies l.,:irt l)s V, - HIGH COURT DATED:0410912'025 ORDER CRP.No.2491 r>{'2025 o ) () .2,, i Ht: s i,l t-' 2 4 il[T 2025 f) r-.--) ::. ..\ -:- . / DISMISSING ()F THE CRP \ e.€4 *6\^'