The High Court · 2025

2. Mrs. A. (Y) Neeraja Reddy,, Wo. Sridhar Laxman, Aged about 46 years, Occ Pvt. Seryice, R/d.Balaji Square, 5th Floor, Madhapur Main Road, Behind Andhra Bank, Madhapur, Hyderabad. ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiff s AND

1. C. Sudhakar,, S/0. C. Venkatesham, Aged about 63 years, Occ. Business, R/O.6-3-663/ 157A, Jafer Ali Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. C. Durga,, Wo. C. Sudhakar, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Housewife, PJo, 6-3-663/ 15/A, Jafer Ah Bagh, Somajiguda, Hyderabad

3. Smt. Rameeza Bee,, Wo. Shaik Jahangir tvliyan, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 2-421 3, Koliaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad.

4. Shaik Chand Pasha,, S/o.Shaik Jahangir [/iyan, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.2- 42, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad.

5. Shaik Saber,, S/o. Shaik Jahangir Miyan, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, Ri/o. H. No. 2-42, Kothaguda, Kondapur, RR Diskict.

6. Shaik Hameed,, S/o.Shalk Jahangir Miyan, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.2-42, Kothaguda, Kandapur, RR District.

7. Shaik Nazeer., S/o. Shaik Jahangir Miyan, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business, R:/o. H. No. 2-42, Kolhaguda, Kondapur, R R District. n+ 8 Shaik Bagldad,, _S/o. Shaik Jahangir Miyan, Aged at) ut 44 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 2-42, Kolhaguda, KonOapur,"R. R. t strict

9. Shaik Basheeruddin,, S/o. Shaik Jahangir Miyan, Aged I out 66 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.2-41l 1116/4, prashantni Nigai Kr> raguda,'Kondapui, R. R. District.

10. Shaik Moh udd in, Business, Fl/o. H. District. . S/o.Shaik Jani Miyan, Aged ao No. 1-1 12l91, Kondafur. Weiker S r t 62 years, Occ -. tion Colony, R. R 11 Shaik Nizam,. S/o. Shaik Mohiuddin, Aged about 45 y: rs Occ. Business R/o H.No 1-112191 , Kothaguda, Kondapu-r, R. R District. 12 Shaik Azam,, S/o.Shaik Mohiuddin, Aged about 53 year-s, )cc. Business, R/o H. No. 1-1'12l91, Kondapur, Weaker S-ection Colony, RR t strict. 13.Shada p"Sf, .Q/9 Sri Siaik Moinuddin, Aged ab( rt 55 years, Housewife, R/o.H.No.1-1'12l91, Kondapur, Weaiker S(), :ion Cdlo;y,' District. Occ. R,R 'l 4. Shaik Shakeel,, Business, R/o H R R District R/o.Shaik Basheeruddrn, No 2-41 11 1/6/A, Prashanthi Aged Nagar abo t 51 years, Occ. K: raguda, Kondapur 15 The Specia Officer and Competent Authority, Under Urtr n Land Ceiting Act, Chandra Vihar Building, 3rd Fioor, Nampa yio M.J.Road tyaeraUia. " -' '16.The Commissroner of Appeals,, Station Road, Abids, H,/(lr "abad 17 The Goverrment of Andhra pradesh, (now Telanoana rj vernment) Reo bv -' the Principat Secretary, Revenue (ULC), Secretarrit, Sai e ,aO, HyOeiaUi[ (The Respondenu Defendant No.3 to 17 are not necr) sary parties to the present petition) RESPONDENTS IA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petrtion under section 151 cpc praying that in the ciror mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court ma,/ re pleased to grant -Addr interim stay of alr for the proceedings in o.s.No. 214 of 2( 24 on the vr District Judge Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, pending ci posal of the above C-R,P Counsel for the Petitione(s).SRl. Ragolla Harish Counsel for the Respondents: Tarun Ram Aitham The Court made the fotlowing. ORDER THE HON OURABLE s RI rUsTIc E P.SAM KOSH Y CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2776 of 2025 ORDER The instant Civil Revision Petition has been fited by the petitioners / plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.07.2025, in I.A.No.169 of 2025 in O.S.No.214 of 2024, passed by the VI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Mr. C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. R.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners / plaintiFfs; and Mr. Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for respondent / defendant Nos.1 and 2

3. yide the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed a petition filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short'CPC') seeking amendment of the plaint by inserting para 11A in the plaint, the cause title, valuation, Court fee and also in the prayer paras.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners / plaintiffs contended that the amendment sought for would not substantially change the nature of relief, but is only a consequential relief, which in addition to the relief sought for was required to be added and whr: I would not in any manner prejudice the interest of the defendants. Ther: ore, the dismissal of the Order VI Rule 17 petition by the Trial Court is b; r in law.

5. However, upon perusal of the pleadings and c ( :uments enclosed along with the instant Revision, what is apparently evi. rnt is that the suit in the instant case was filed in the year 2072 and aft("the notices were issued, the defendants filed their written statement <tt 25.04.2013. fhis by itself would go to establish how old the suit was, \ hat was the relief sought for and what was the stand taken by the deferrr ants, both being a decade ago. Subsequently, the parties contested the c.;e and when it has reached the fag r:nd of final arguments, the present I nendment petition has been filed.

6. What is also evident is the fact that the petitior r rs / plaintiffs have not been able to give a plausible explanation as to n I y the suit was not amended by them immediately when the written sta: ment was Filed by the defendants or even at the time when the issues lv: e framed and they even did not care to seek fo. an app.opriate amr,r dment during the course of trial i.e. rryhen the evidence oF the parties w;l recorded. Further, the evidence of both the sides have already been oncluded and the matter now stands posted for final arguments. At this tage, seeking such \ I a relief, in the opinion of this court is not proper, legal and justified and the Trial court seems to have rightly dismissed the amendment petition. 7, The instant Revision, thus being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected.

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Vl Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally (with records if any) 2 One CC to SRl. Ragolla Harish, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. Tarun Ram Aitham, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies o. JA/PSL HIGH COURT DATED.10t10t2025 ORDER CRP No 2776 of 2025 I I o ( * 1l1r 12 ,: :c e .--*- I ) i CI ).- CIVII,, REVISION PI]TITION IS REJECTED ee 0