The High Court · 2025

13.The Collector, Jangaon District (Proforma defendant) I I , ! i ! i ; t : i 1 i i i

14.Chilunroju Raju, S/o. Venkatesham, aged 29 years, Occu. Farmer, R/o. H.No.11-43, Narmetta Mllage and Mandal, Jangaon District.

15. Kukatla Laxmaiah, S/o. Siddaiah, aged 49 years, Occu. Agriculture, FUo. H.No.5.12, Gangupahad Village, Jahgaon Mandal and District.

16. Nana l3rinivas Reddy, S/o. Somi Reddy, aged 40 years, Occti. Agriculture, R/o. H. No.4-39, Shameerpet Village, Jangabn Mandal and Districf.

17. Kasula, Ramesh Kymar, S/o. Anjaiah, aged 49 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o.H.No.4-9-97, Street No.3, HMT Nagar, Naiharam, Uppal Mandal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District.

18. Naraboina Pandu, S/o. Sathaiah, aged 37 yearc, Occu. Councillor, R/o. H.No.ti-1-110, Sanjay Nagar, Jangaon Town and District. l9.Srirama Developers, CCIN/Firm/Society/Trust No.34212023 represented by its a_uthorized percon namely Edugud indla Chandramoul i R/o. H. No. 1 2- 1 3-M5, Nagarirjuna Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: I 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 all further proceedings in l.A.No.2o2 ot 2024 in o.S.No.309 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial. Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petitic,n under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affida'rit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to take out notice on the legal heirs of Respondent Nos.8 and 10 through paper publication to contest in the above CRP in the interest of justice in any locat Telugu news,paper by way of substitute service. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NARENDAR JALLI Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court mrade the following: ORDER n THE HONOTJRABLE SMT. JUSTICE REI\IUKA YARA ORDER: Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the entire record. 2- This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge+um--Judicial Magistrate of First class, Janagaon, ('trial court'), in I.A.No .zoz of za!4 in O.S.No.309 of 2022, wherein petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with section l5t of c.P.c., seeking amendment to the plaint has been dismissed

3. Ttre brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and rectification of renen*e records. The petitioner claims to be actually in possession of the suit schedule property i.e., land to an extent of Ac. tt-17 % guntas in Sy-Nos-356 to 358 situated at Jeedikal Village, Lingala Ghanpur Mandal, J4ngaon District. When there were attempts to encroach the said {and on the part of the respondents, the suit for declaration of title together with ' relief of perpetual injunction had to be sought for. while so, tlrc learned counsel for tlre petitioner on record before the trial Coum allegedly draftod .*#'"^'\ --l RY,J cRP 2902 2024 i' ,\ the plaint seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession. When the matter carne to the knowledge of the petitioner, he chang"d th" said counsel and filed the I.A. under revision seeking amendment to seek relief of perpetual injunction instead of recbvery of possession and to replace pleadings which show that the respondents/defendants are in occupation as against th,e possession of the petitioner. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. leading to filing of the present revision.

4. In ripite of service of notice, the respondents did not appear before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the plaint contents and need for t:ffective amendment and dismissal of the I.A. by the trial Court. It is subrmitted that the amendment sought for would not change the nature of the suil as the primary relief sought is declaration of title. Currenrly, the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property and therefore, there is no neerl for seeking of relief of recovery of possession. while so, the trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of due diligence for filing the I.A. after gap of more than two months of filing of vakalath by the second counsel for the petitioner. with respect to lack of due diligence, it is submitted ttrat the petition to amend has been filed prior ro 2 t) RY,J &P 2eo2JO24 commencement of tial and therefore, squarely meets requirentents of Order VI Rule 17 of tlre C'P'C' \

6.Havingregardtothecontentionsofttrepetitioner,incasethe petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property' there is no need to seek recovery of possession. Also, there is need to amend the pleadings to put-forth the case of the petitioner as per his version' No purpose would be t \ \ \ servedbydenyingsuchanopportunityandcompelthepetitionerto proceedwiththereliefthatisnotrequired.Inanycase,thetrialhasnot commenced and there can be no obstruction for carrying out amendment' T.Comirrgtotheapprehensionaboutthechangeofnahrreofthesuit, the nature of the suit is declaration of title' The only change would be seekirrgeitherrecoveryofpossessionorperpetualinjunction.Whenthe petitioner is in possession, it is only appropriate that perpetual injunction is soughtandnotrecoveryofpossession.Thedelayoftwomothscannotbe ground to deny the relief prayed for by the petitioner' S.Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,theimpugnedorderisliableto be set aside.

9. In the result, the Civit Revision Petition is allowed by settirg aside theimpugnedonderdated|g.o7.2024inI.A.No.2o2of2024ino.S.No.3o9-.. \,, 3 j I i I l,ti RY,J cRP 2902 2024 I of 2022 on the file of the trial Court. Consequently, I.A.No.202 of 2024 is allowed permitting the petitioner to carry out amendments to the plaint as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. / To, SD'. A.JAYASREE I coPYil OFFICER of First

1. The f)rincioal J_unior Civil Judge-cum_Judiciat Class;, Jangaon.

2. One CC to SRt. NARENDAR JAL|JAdvocate tOpUCI 3. Two CD Copies w TPK/PSL I i i i I t I i I i I i I i t I 4 HIGH COURT DATED i'17110/,2025 \ \ I Ii o ElTI=rrl G RP.No.2902 of 2024 o() * THE S t 1 0 rFg 'n'fi * CMIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED I I I t I i; i i I I iI E 10