The High Court · 2025

...RespondentslRespondents/Defendants 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 of all further t,roceedings in OS.No.65/2013 on the file of Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, []huvanagiri, pending disposal of the above CRP in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Kunal Kakad representing Sri B. Mohan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K Jagadishwar Reddy ON PETITION Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dl. 17.07.212ai passed in |.A.No.20212025 in O.S. No. 65/2013 on the file of the Court of the P'incipal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri.

1. Thotaklra Narsaiah (died), Yadadri- Bhongir 2. Thotakura Laxmaiah (died), Yadadri- Bhongir 3. Thotakura Santhosh Kumar, S/o late Laxmaiah Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculhrre, R/o Veeravally Mllage, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir Dishict. 4. Thotakura Ashok, S/o late Laxmaiah Aged about 30 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

5. Yema Lmarani, W/o Venkatesh, D/o Late T. Laxmaiah, aged 29 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Chakripuram, Keesara Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. ...PetitionersrPetitioners/Plaintiffs ENII.]

1. Revu Shivaiah, S/o R. Sailu, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o Veerava lly Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

2. Revu Yadagiri, S/o R. Sailu, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

3. Revu Srisailam, S/o R. Sailu, Aged about4T years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

4. Revu Mallaiah, S/o R. Sailu, Aged about40 years, Occ. Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir Di Agriculture, strict R/o

5. Kanchi Bixapathi, S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

6. Kanchi Laxmaiah, S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o Veeravally Mllage, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

7. Kanchi Mallaiah, S/o Narcaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, Fyo Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District i 8. The Village Revenue officer, Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri- Bhongir District

9. The Tahsildar, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District. (Res.No.8 and 9 are not necessary parties) ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 of all further proceedings in O.S.No.65/201.3 on the file of Honble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, pending disposal of the above CRP in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Kunal Kakad representing Sri B. Mohan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K Jagadishwar Reddy CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2858 OF 2025 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dt. 17.07.2025 passed in 1.4.No.20012025 in O.S. No. 65/2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri. Between:

1. Thotakura Narsaiah (died), Yadadri- Bhongir 2. Thotakura Laxmaiah (died), Yadadri- Bhongir 3. Thotakura Santhosh Kumar, S/o late Laxmaiah Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Veeravally Mllage, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. 4. Thotakura Ashok, S/o late Laxmaiah Aged about 30 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

5. Yema Urharani, Wo Venkatesh, D/o Late T. Laxmaiah, aged 29 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Chakripuram, Keesara Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. ...Petitioner8/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND

1. Revu shivaiah, s/oR. Sailu; Aged about 62 years, occ. Agriculture, R./o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, yadadri-Bhongir District

2. Revu Ya.{a.oiqj, s/o R. sailu, Aged qlout 57 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o Veera vally Vill age, Bhongir Mahdal, yadadri-Bhongi r DistrTct

3. Revu srisailam, S/o R. Sailu, Aged about 47 years, occ. Agriculture, R:/o Veeravally village, Bhongir Manlal, yadadri-Bhongir Distridt . ' 4. Revu Mallaia.h, S/oR. sailu, 4geo about 40 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mahdal, yadadri-Bhongir Distri-ct

5. Kanclri Bixapathi, slo Narsaiqh, Age-d about 50 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o Veeravally village, Bhongir Manda-i, yadadri-Bhirngir District -

6. Kancl'ri Laxmaiah, S/o Narsaiah, Agq! about 47 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o veeravally village, Bhongir Mandal yadadri-Bhcingir District

7. Kancl'ri Mallaiah, S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Aqriculture. R/o Veeravally village, Bhongir Mandil, yadadri-Btiongir District-

8. The Village Revenue officer, Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, yadadri- Bhongir District

9. The Tirhsildar, Bhongir Mandal, yadadri Bhongir District. (Res.f,lo.8 and g are not necessary parties) ... Res pondents/Res po nd nets/Defendants IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of_th_e peti_tio1, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.65t2O13 onlhe file of frinciial Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, pending disposal of the above cRp in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation in the interest of justice. counsel for the Petitioners : sri Kunat Kakad representing Sri B. Mohan Counsel forthe Respondents : Sri K Jagadishwar Reddy CIVIL REvlSllON PETITION NO:2898 OF 2025 Petitiorr under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order a dt. 17.07.2025 passed in 1.A.No.20112025 in O.S. No. 65/2013 on the file of the Court of the F)rincipal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri. Between:

1. Thotakura Narsaiah (died), Thotakura Narsaiah (died), 2. Thotakura Laxmaiah (died), Thotakura Laxmaiah (died)

3. Thotakura santhosh Kumar,..s/o late Laxmaiah Aged about 35 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o VeeravallyVillage, Bhongir Mandal,-Yadadri-Bhongir Oiitrict. 4. Thotakura Ashok, s/o late Laxmaiah Aged about 30 years, occ. Agriculture, FUo Veeravally Village, Btrongir Mandal, Yadad ri-Bhonfiir District,

5. Yema Umarani, wo Venkatesh, D/o Late T. Laxmaiah, aqed 29 vears. occ. Housewife, R/o chakri puram, Keesara Mandal, Medchai uitr4giri'oistri'ct .. Petitioners/Petitioners/Plai ntiffs :*, AND

1. Revu Shivqiqh, S/oR. Sailu, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mahdal, yadadri-Bhongir Distri-ct

2. Revu Ya.{agiq!, S/o $. Sailu, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Veerava lly Vil lage, Bhong ir Mahdal, Yadadri- Bhong i r Distr-ict

3. Revu srisailam, s/o_R. sailu, Aged about4T years, occ. Agricurture, R/o Veeravally Village, Bh ongir M and al, yadadri-[]hongir Distridt

4. Revu Mqllajq.f, S/o!. Sailu, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R./o Veeravally Vil lage, Bhon g ir tvtahO at, yadad ri-Bhong i r Distri=ct

5. Kanchi B-ixapathi, s/o Narsaiqh, Aged about 50 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Manda-i, yadadri-Bhirngir District -

6. Kanchi Laxmaiah, s19 Napgiah, Aged about 4T years, occ. Agriculture, R/o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District

7. Kanchi Mallaiah, s/o.Narsai-afr, Aged about 45 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District-

8. The Village Revenue officer, Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, yadadri- Bhongir District

9. The Tahsildar, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District. ... Respondents/Respond ents/Defendants lA NO: 1OF 2025 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.6512013 on the file of Honble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, pending disposal of the above CRP in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation in the interest of justice. a counsel for the Petitioners : sri Kunal Kakad representing sri B. Mohan Gounsel for the Respondents : Sri K Jagadishwar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HONOURABL SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH CML REVISION PEIITION Nos. 2826,2A37 , 2858 AND 2898 of 20125 COMMON ORDER: 1 Since atl the Civil Revision Petitions are connected to each other and arising out of one and the same suit i.e. O.S.No.65 of 2OI3 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, they are heard together and being disposed of by a common order.

2. i) C.R.RNo.2826 of 2ol25 is filed against the dismir;sal order dated 17 .O7 .2025 in I.A.No.lgg of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2OL3, which was filed to amen<l the prayer in the plaint. ii) C.R.P.No.2858 of 2O25 is filed against the dismissal order dated L7.O7 .2025 in I.A.No.2OO of 2o25 in O.S.No.65 of 2O13, which was fiIed to receive the additional documents. i:,i) C.R.P.No.2898 of 2O2S is filed against dismisrsal order dated 17.o7.2o2s in r.A.No.2ol of I 2 SK,J 20i25 in O.S.No.65 of 2013 which was filed to reopen the evidence. iv) C.R.P.No.2837 of 20125 is against the dismissal order dated L7.OT .2025 in I.A.No.2O2 of 2oi25 in O.S.No.65 of 2O13, which was filed to recall the Pw 1 for the purpose of marking documents.

3. Heard Sri Kunal Kakad, learned Counsel appearing for sri B.Mohan, Learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Jagidishwar fteddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and perused the record. learned Counsel for

4. The petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the father and grandfather of petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit + against the respondents/defendants, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and recovery of possession and cancellation of registered Doc.No. LO}S l2OtO dated o 1.04.20 10 and for \ \ a J SK,J rectification of revenue records in respect of A, B and c schedule properties situated at veeravally village, Bhongi:: Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District and in the said suit evidence was closed and was coming for reply arguments of the plaintiffs.

5. Th e learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the suit was filed by the father and grzuedfather of the petitioners in the year, 2ol3 for declaration of title, perpetual injunction, recovery of possession and cancellation of Registered sale deed in respect of "A to c" schedule lands against * the respondents/defendants and due to typographical mistake it was mentioned as A to c schedule properties, instead of 'A & c' schedule properties for perpetual injunction, and recovery of possession in respect r>f 'B' schedule property, by cancelling the sale Deed No. 1 o95 /20 1o dated oL .o4.2o10 executed by the respondr:nts Nos.1 to 4 in favour of respondent Nos.S 3 to 7 in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac-2.22 guntas in Sy.Nos.Ss/AA/ L, as null and void ./ 4 SK,J and therefore filed a petition to amend the prayer of the plaint as perpetual injunction in respect of A & C Schedule properties and recovery of possession of respect of B-Schedu1e properties.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit, after closure of the evidence on both sid.es, the petitioners could trace a document in their house, which reflects partition among their father and brothers of his father, wherein the grandfather of the petitioners/plaintiff No.1 made partition of all lands in Sy.No.8S, oD L2.O4.I996 and the said document is crucial to prove their case.

7. The learned counsel for.the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners also filed another petition to mark the said document recall of evidence of PWl is essential. As the suit was at the stage of arguments, the petitioners filed another petition reopen the evidence of PW1. \ 5 SK,J

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would furt'her submit that, alr the petitions fired ,by the petitioners/praintiffs were dismissed by separate imprrgned orders dated 17.o7 -2015. Being aggrieved by tJee same, the present civ, Revision petitions are filed. 9' The learned counsel for the petitioners would furth'er submit that, the triar court ought to have seen that after commencement of arguments the petitioners tracecl the documents and therefore failed to consider the petition to receive the documents. He 'ivourd further submit that the triar court failed to consider that t'e due to typographicar mistake A to c schedure was rnentioned in the prayer portion, instead of 'A & C' and such inadvertent mistake cannot be refusecr to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint and even if the amendrnent petition is arowed, the nature of suit wilr not be changed and requested to set aside the lmpugned orders 6 SK,J

10. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents have filedtheircomprehensivewrittenstatementinthesuit in month of Jttne' 2Ol3' wherein they clearly mentionedthattherespondents/defendantNos.StoT have purchased B-Schedule property on O1'04'2010 vide document No'1095 l2OlO from the respondents 1 to 4 I defendant Nos' 1 to 4 and since the date of purchase the respondent Nos'S to '7 xe in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the said registered sale d'eed was also implemented in the revenue records and they were also issued old and new pattadar pass books and they also obtained crop loan by dePos'iting the same with PACS, ChanduPatla' They further contended that the petition was filed after twenty five years of execution of register sale deed and the suit was at the stage of arguments and if the amendment is allowed' it \Mill change entire nature of the suit. \ 1

11. The learned Counsel SK,J respon<lents/defendants would further submit that the petitioners filed a petition to receive certified copy of Ame:ndment Register for the year Lgg6-g1 and sale deed e:<ecuted by the plaintiff No. 1 in favour of the plaintift No.2 and the said documents were not referrecl in the plaint pleadings or in the evidence of the plilntiff witnesses, therefore they cannot be receivecl and moreover the alleged documents are inadmir;sible in evidence and there are no merits in the revisior:.s and the trial court rightly dismissed .the applicat-ions filed by the petitioners and requested to dismiss the revision petitions. L2. The learned Counsel for the unofficial responclents in support of their contentions, placed the relizrnce on the following Judgment: Rctjkumar Gurutara (dead) through LRS Vs. S..K.Scurutagi and Compang put. Ltd.rl I 'lzooa; 14 scc 364 8 SK,J

13. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that, initially petitioners Nos.l and 2/plarntiffs have filed a suit vide O.S.No.65 of 2OL3 against the respondents/defendants for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, recovery of possession and also for cancellation of registered Sale Deed No. 1095 /2OlO dated 0 1 .04.20 10, and also for rectification of records in respect of plaint A, B and C schedule properties in the said suit. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 hlave died, thereafter the legal heirs of the petitioners Nos.l arrtd 2 brought on record and the plaint was amended accordingly. After closure of the evidence of both sides, both sides have advanced arguments and the suit posted for reply arguments of petitioners/plaintiffs. At that stage, the petitioners have filed four petitions, i.e. amendment of prayer in the plaint, receive the documents, recall of PW1 and to ) ) reopen the evidence. All the petitions filed by the ,A 9 SK,J petitioners were dismissed by the triar court its by orders dated LZ.OT.2O2S l+' The triar court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners for amendment of the praint, on the ground that the amendment sought by the petitioners coulcl have raised at the earriest stage, before comr nencement of trial and further observed that the amer::dment was sought against the statutory principles. The petition fired for receiving documents was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to plead about the said docur:rent and as the document sought to be marked i'e' unregistered, unstamped sale deed, is invarid as per sr:ction Act rr of the Registration Act. As the receiving of additionar documents ancr amendment of prayer were dismissed, the rest of the two petitions filed fcrr reopen and recail of the evidence of pwl for the purpose of marking the documents, were arso dismis:sed. Being aggricved by the same, the petitio,ers filed the instant civil Revision petitions. \ \ 10 sI(,/

15. In so far as the amendment of the prayer of the plaintisconcerned.,thecontentionofthepetitionersis thatduetotypographicalmistake'itwaswrongly mentioned as A to C Schedule properties' instead of A and C schedule properties for perpetual injunction' andcancellationofregisteredsaledeedexecutedby the respondents/defendant Nos'l to 4 in favour of respondents/defendant' Nos'5 to 7 and also for recovery of possession for B-Schedule property'

16. The prayer of I'A'No' 199 of 2O2S in O'S'No'65 of 2O13, filed for amend'ment' reads as follows: * ::)^: " At the place of prayer portion in n "!d That a d'ecree be passed for Recouery o'f possessuon in respect o.f '8" Sclteduie prgperty bu euicti?g !h: de.ferudi*"' 5 to 7 bi deieting the oB' Schedule ProPertY" ' LT . As per Order-VI ' Rule- 17 ' after adducing evidence, no amendments can be permitted' Rule' 17 of Order-VI C.P'C reads as: 77- Amendment of Pleadittgs'- \ \ The Court may at ang stage of the proceedings allotl either partA o alter or amend his pleadings in u SK,J such manner and on such terms as maA be just, and ali such amendments shall be made as maA be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controuersg between the parties. Prouided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Ccturt conies to the conclusion that in spite of due d.it'igence, the party couLd not haue raised the matter bgfore the commencement of tial".

18. The contention of the petitioners is that at the time of filing of the suit, due to typographical mistake in the prayer portion and wrongly mentioned as "A,B and C" Schedule properties, instead of A & C Schedule properties for perpetual injunction and seeking for recovery of possession in respect of B-Schedule property. Now, the petitioners wanted to delete the 'B' Schedule property in the prayer of the plaint for injunction and wanted to add the said B-Schedule property 'as recovery of possession'

19. Para No.7 of the plaint, filed by the petitioners in the sui':, read as follows: I t2 SK,J "...... defendants 7 to 7, utho are no udA concerrled uith the suit schedule propertg and bg taking ad.uantage of nominal, bogus, 'forced doatments are trying to interfere with the A,B and C schedule lands on 19.03.2013 in order to ocanpg the lands o/ the plaintiffs illegally utith the support of the unsocial elements, ba creating the ownership in the reuenue records, by knowinffilly the subject matter o/ ROR appeal is pending before the RDO, Bhongir and" they re tryiing to alienate the schedule 'B' land as such the said d"ocuments are false, fabricated., fabricated, forged and bogus d.oanments, uthich is null and uoid and not binding onthe plaintiffs", Para lVo.8 of the ptaint reads as under: That the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the suit 'A',8 and- C' schedule lands, that there is no similaritg suit is pending in ana other court except this suit in respect of A,B and c schedule lands". 2c,. A,perusal of the pleadings of plaint'shows that the petitioners are in possession of A, B and c schedule properties and sought injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession over ) ! l3 SK,J A,B zmd C lands. Now. the petitioners are stating that due to typographical mistake, wrongly mentioned in the pray€)r portion as A to C' schedule properties instead of 'l\ and C" schedule properties for perpetual injunction and recovery of possession in respect of B-Schedule properties. 2L. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for thre respondents in Rajkr.ttnor Gantutaraa (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the instant cases

22. The trial Court, re\ring on the Judgment in Dine:sh Gogal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarutal (Bindal) and others, arising out of a special Leave petition (Civil) No.3032 4 /2019 , rightly observed that no appli<:ation for amendment shall be allowed after the trial ;ras commenced unless the court comes to the conclrrsion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the comlrrencement of trial. The trial' court rightly held that if the amendmenr is permitted the nature of the \ \t/ l4 sI(,J suit will changes and the petition filed for the amendment of prayer was dismissed and there a-re no rnerits in the Civil Revision Petition warranting to interference of this Court in the orders passed in I.A.No' lgg l2o25in O'S'No'65 of 2013' 2g. Admittedly' the document' which is sought to be deed executed by the petitioner No' 1 in favour of the petitioner No'2' dated 12'04'1996 and the amendment register for the year 1996-91 The trial court rightly held that an ordinary sale deed' which is unstamped and unregistered' is not valid as per Secdon 17 of the markedbythepetitioners/.plaintiffswasasimplesale RegistrationActand35ofthe'stampsAct'Therefore' thefindingofthetrialCourtinrefusingtoreceive additionaldocumentsdoesnotcallforanyinterference bY this Court' 24 The petitioners/plaintiffs failed to satisff the conditions Prescribed in Proviso to Order-VI' Rule- 17 and all the relevant asPects have been dulY co nsidered ii,,l: i I \ l5 SK,J by the trial court and rightly dismissed the petitions filed b1'the petitioners. There are no merits in the civil Revision Petitions, wa-rranting any interference of this Court 25- In view of the above findings, the ord.ers passed in I.A.llo. r99/2025 in o.s.No.6s/2oL3, on the file of Additio,at senior civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, for amendr-eent of prayer, .eeds no interference and accordingly c.R.p.No.2g26 of 2025 is liable to be dismissr:d. 26' 'lhe orders passed in I.A.No.2 oo /2o2s in o.S.No.(iS of 20L3 on the file of Additional Senior civil Judge, Ilhuvanagiri, for receiving the documents also needs o'r interference and accordingly c.R.p.No.2g5B of 2025 is liable to be dismissed.

27. In view of dismissar of c.R.p.Nos.2g26 and 2g5g of 2025 for amendment of prayer and receiving of documents respectively, the orders passed I.A.Nos.2,J 1 0f 2025 artd,2c2 0f 2025 in o.s.65 0f 2025 1n \ t6 SK,J on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, for reopening the evidence and recalling of PWl, does not arise, and accordingly, C.R.P.Nos. 2898 and 2837 of 2025 are liable to be dismissed.

28. Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. \ sol- K.AMMAJT DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, w

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri. 2. One CC to Sri B. Mohan, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K Jagadishwar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies DL/PSL ,tt \ \ HIGH COUFTT DATED:12fl)9/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.2ll26, 2837, 2858 AND 2898 of 2025 sTA o o 0 6 {EB 2026 * -:{:-. (,) -tr\ * OISMISSING THE CRPs tO ...I (