The High Court · 2025

under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings in O.S No 116 of 2017 on the file of Senior Civit Judge Court at Surypet. For the Petitioners: Sri pasnooru Ananth Aathreyasa, Advocate For the Respondents: The Court made the following. ORDER HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO.2689 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

05.07.2024 in I.A.No.410 of 2023 in O.S.No.116 of 2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet

2. Heard Sri Pasnooru Ananth Aathreyasa, learned counsel for petitioners.

3. [t is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.116 of 2017 for declaration of title and also for perpetual injunction against the respondents herein. Respondents entered appearance and filed written statement and issues have been framed. At that stage, petitioners filed LA.No.410 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint and also seeking additional reliefs in the plaint, as "Add para No.9 after "There from" add the following Iines and cause of action for the suit further arose on 04.02.29021when the Revenue Special Tribunal, Suryapet Diskict has dismissed the revision petition filed by the plaintiffs and also when the defendants No.2 and 3 have filed a false injunction suit against the plaintiffs vide O.S.No.100 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge at Thungadrurthy and all subsequent days the defendant No.2 to 5 and 9 are making illegal acts over the suit schedule properties. Add in the para No.10 " alter 173 of Limitation Act" add "Section 64 of Limitation Act " reY-----1.-'' -/.*qa(py ...,=, ) For the purpose of an alternative relief of recovery of possession the relief is valucd at Rs.14,51,250/- which is the 3/4tt'market value of the plaint schedule property is Rs.19,35,000/- as per the market value cerLificate @ Rs.4,50,000 f - per acre issued by the Tahsildar cum Joint Regishar, Thirumalagiri Mandal and the Court fee of Rs.77,025 / - is paid under Section 24(a) of TSCF & SV Act and the said valuation ccrtificatcs arc filed herewith. Add in the relief para at relief C(a) C(a): If anv leason the Hon'ble Court has came into conclusion after trial that the plaintiffs are lost their possession over the suit schedule property subsequentll, after filing the suit an alternative relief of recovcry possession may be granted in favour of the plaintiffs by evicting dre defendant Nos.2 to 5 and 9 or any person claiming through them over the suit schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs and pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiffs by granting decree and judgment in favour of thc plaintiff as prayed by them over the suit schedule property the samc are clearly mentioned in the plaint- Add in the list of documents "Documents No.14 and 15" as 14. Market Valuc Ccrtificate issued by Tahsildar cum Jornt I{egistrar, Tliirumalagiri N{;rr.rclaI and the same was obtained by the plaintiffs thlough DHr\RAN I poltal.

15. Market Valuc Cerfificate issued by Tahsildar cum Joint Registrar, Thirumalagiri Mandal and the same was obtained by the plaintiffs through DI-IARANI portal. Add in cause title after "Rectification of wrong entries" add ind also alternative relief of recovery possession of the suit schedule property."

4. Learned counsel for petitioners had contended that in view of subsequent developmer-rts that have taken place, the amendments and additional reliefs in the plaint sought for by the petitioners have become necessary in orcler to address the injunction suit filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 against the petitioners in O.S.No.10O of 2022 ) before the Junior Civil Judge at Thungathurthy. Therefore, petitioners sought to amend the plaint, as referred above. ( l

5. The respondent Nos.2, 3 and 9 filed counter resisting the application and contended that application is not maintainable in the eye of law as no cau se of action shall be joined with a suit for recovery of immovable property and ftirther, it is contended that when the matter is coming up for evidence, this applicaLion is filed only to protract the matter. It is also the specific case of the respondents that petitioners herein made efforts to occupy the land of the 3.d respondent and damaged the standing cotton crop and on a complaint filed bv the 3.a respondent, a criminal case in Crime No.113 of 2022 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 447 , 427 r / w 34 of IPC and there are no merits in the application and prayed to dismiss the application 6 The triat Cosrt rtide impugned order dismissed the application with an observation that amendment sought for by the petitioners is vague and it also amounts to change of the nature of the suit. It was further observed that there is no clarity in the contention of the petitioners whether they are in possession of the property or not. The trial Court also observed that the amendments sought by the petitioners amount to different reliefs, which could not be pleaded in consonance with the relief prayed for in the plaint.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the amendments were sought only to avoid multipticitl, of litigation. It is further contended that the respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.100 of 2022 for perpetual injunction concerniug item No.2 of the schedule properties and are attempting to dispossess the petitioners from the suit schedule property. In the event of dispossessiorr, the Petitioners would be compelled to seek an alternative remedy, therefore, an application was filed for recovery of possession in anticipation of dispossession

8. In considered opinion of this Court, amendments sought in the application cannot be granted as the same amounts to change of the nafure of the suit and further, amendment sought is contrary to the main relief in the suit. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the petitioners have no clarity whether they are in possession of suit schedule property or not. A party cannot seek a relief of recovery of possession in anticipation of loss of possession. Further, no cause of action has arisen for the petitioners to seek remecly of relief for recovery of possession when they are contending that they are in L ;t:tl. - . . ..,: -.:l':::ir.. ...,:- ,l 5 possession of the suit schedule property and in fac! sought injunction against the respondents. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and petitioners failed to point out any itlegality or irreguiarity in the impugned order and also failed to make out any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is made ciear that during the pendency of the sui! petitioners are at liberty to avail any remedy available in law. 't'here shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// V SECTION OFFICER '1. The Senior Civil Judge Court at Suryapet 2. One CC to Sri pasno-oru Ananth Aaifirjyiia, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies KNI(PSL 0 ^ _ I +1-- r-t HIGH COURT DATED.12t3t2025 I I .1HE S c '1 () T * 23 JUL M J t 6(- P ORDER CRP.No.2689 of 2024 REVISION IS DISI\NISSED, NO COSTS tL \tS\'