The High Court · 2025

1 2/Defendant'No.S to 9)

6. Ramolla Rajasheaker, S/o. Chandriah, Aed about 49 years, Occ. Scco Employee and Agriculture t)

7. Ramolla Swamy, S/o. Chandriah, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Agriculture Both Respondent No. 6 and 7 are Rl/o. Perkapalli village, Bellampalli Mandal, Mancherial District

8. Ramolla Suguna, Wo. Late Bhoomaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ.Agriculture,

9. Ramolla Rajesh Kumar, S/o. Late Bhoomaiah, aged about 27 years, Occ. Private Employee,

10. Ramolla Sai, S/o. Bhoomaiah, minor is being represented by Aged about 15 years, Occ. Student, (R9 being R8 his natural guardian/mother) 1 1 . Smt. Kunta Vijay Laxmi, Wo. Venkatesham, Age about 35 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Kasireddypally, Bellampaily, trllncherial

12.Smt Bingi Dhanalaxmi, S/o. Shyam, Aged about 31 years, Occ. House_hold, R/o. LB Market, Sirsilak Area, Kigazna-gar (R5 TO R12 formal parties/not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS NO F20 Petition under section 1s1 oF cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affida-vit.Jiled in support of the petitionj th-e Hign court may i" pr""."a t" grant stay of all further proceedings in o.s. No. 24\tio14 on the fiie ot iunior. Judge Bellampalli. "irir Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. cUDt MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER .^) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA C.R.P. No.3O61 OF 2O25 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dt.03.07.2o25 passed in IA.No.938 of 2025 in OS.No.248 of 2Ol4 by the Junior Civil Judge at Bellampalli.

2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.4 in the above suit. The said suit was filed by respondents No.l to 4 herein/plaintiffs seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In the suit, respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs claim that their father was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule propert5r, that during his life time, as he was fell ill and could not cultivate the land and as the plaintiffs were minors, he had leased out the propert5r for a period of two years to the father of the defendants Nb.1 to 3 from 1969-70 & 70-71, that thereafter, their father cultivated the subject land for some period, and later, ttre plaintiffs continued with the cultivation, and as such, they are in continuous possession of the said land. It was further claimed that their father had never sold any part of the property to anybody during his life time, and after his death, they got their names mutated in the revenue records, and that taking advantage of the name of father of defendants No.l to 3 being recorded in the possession column, the defendants are trying to evict the plaintiffs from their lawful possession over the suit land. -/ 2

3. Defendant No.4 filed written statement on 15.10.2005 and additional written statement on O3.lO.2Ol7. By the written statement, it is stated that father of the plaintiffs had sold Acs.5.95 cents in survey No.128 to the father of defendants No.l to 3 and that the father of the plaintiffs also sold Acres 5.95 cents in survey No.128 to one Pancharpula Poshaiah through ordinar5r sale deed on o6.03.1972 for a consideration of Rs.6oo/- and was inducted into possession by his vendor, and since the said pancharpula Poshaiah, who is the real brother of the wife of the 4ft respondent died on 23.03.1983 issueless, the wife of the 4th respondent, being the sister and only legal heir of Pancharpula poshaiah, inherited the said propert5r of Acres 5.95 cents in survey No.l28, and thus, the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendants were never in possession of the suit land, is false.

4. By the additional written statement frted in 2OLT, the 4th defendant contended that the plaintiffs had sought amendment of the boundaries after the said defendant filing his written statement in 2005 giving original and real boundaries along with sketch of I the survey No.128, and thus, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the benefit of amended boundaries.

5. At the stage of trial, in the year 2025, while the suit is coming up for the further evidence of defendants, the petitioner/defendant No.4 filed the underlying application seeking I -*#.s'iit'*"*' 3 permission of the Court to amend the pleadings in the written statements.

6. Respondents No.7 to 4lplaintiffs filed counter opposing the said application and contending that original written statement was filed by the 4tr respondent on 15.10.2005 i.e.,20 years ago and an additional written statement was filed on 03.10.2017 i.e.,8 years ago, and despite availing the opportunity of filing two written statements, he failed to mention the alleged handing over of the Sada sale deed to Patwari in either of the written statements, and that the word 'Father'which was sought to be replaced with the word Brother'was pleaded many times in the written statement, and at no place, the correct word Brother'was referred to plead that it is a typographical error.

7. The trial Court had dismissed the said application observing that the plea of the petitionerf 4b defendant that he came to know about the said fact is not acceptable, as he failed to show that in spite of due diligence he could not plead the same in his written statement.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the present Revision is filed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitionerl+ttt defendant reiterated the petition averments and also the stand taken by him before the trial Court. He also contended that the trial Court erred in ? / 4 .- \*-1i referring as if the petitioner is the plaintiff and also the amendment petition was Iiled after a lapse of 2O years. He further submits that the said amendments were very much required as they were omitted due to oversight in the written statements filed by the 4ft defendant.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that she was recently appointed as GPA of the 4ft defendant uide I.A.Nos.835 and 834 of 2025, and on going through the written statements filed, she came to know of the omissions, which were sought by way of amendment, and thus, prayed to allow the under\ring application, by setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

11. Firstlg, the suit is of the year 2OO4 and the 4e defendant frled his written statement on 15. 10.2OO5, and thereafter the suit was transferred to the trial Court on the point of jurisdiction and renumbered as OS.No.248 of 2014, 'and thereafter the 4s defendant filed additional written statement on O3. 10.2017.

12. Secondly, nowhere in either of the written statements filed by the 4e defendant had mentioned about the Sada Bainama, and is a new plea sought to be introduced by way of amendment after commencement of trial and that too, after completion of plaintiffs' evidence and commencement of defendants' evidence. I 5

13. The trial court rightly observed that the proposed amendment changes the nature of suit by introducing new claim of handing over documents to the Patwari, and allowing the underlying application would force the plaintiffs to re-litigate the case based on entirely new facts.

14. Since the suit is of the year 2OO4(renumbered as OS.No.248/2014 on being transferred), after lapse of 20 years, that too after filing written statement in the year 20oS and additional written statement in the year 2or7, on the ground of the petitioner being appointed as GPA, cannot be permitted to raise new pleas by way of amendments, which would force the plaintiffs to reagitate their case from the beginning, based on new pleas, resulting in delay in disposal of the suit, which was instituted two decades ago.

15. Further, mere wrong mentioning of petitioner/plaintiff at para 7 of the order, does not go to the root of the order, when all through in trrte detailed order passed, he \Mas referred as petitioner/ defendant No.4, correctly.

16. For the aforementioned reasons, this court is of the considered view that the order of the Court below in dismissing the underlying interlocutory application does not suffer from any infirmity or error for being interfered by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 222 of the Constitution of India. ./ ? 5 f('

17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. / Sd/. M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge Bellampalli. 2. One CC to SRI GUDI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies GR/kam w HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 i{ HESIA CJ C) 0 I JAN 2[2[ * -t: I = CRP.No.3061 of 2025 a DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETI €