The High Court · 2025

!4qngka Srinivas, S/o. Devaiah, Age: 53 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 2-711N1 , Thippapur Village, Vemulawada Rajanna Sircilta Diskict. -Mandat, ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 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 of all further proceedings in O.S.No.41 oI 2018 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge at Rajanna Sircilla T Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B. Dharma Teja, counsel representing Sri R.A. Achuthanand The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI C.R.P.No.3479 ot 2024 ORDER Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri B. Dharma Teja, learned counsel representing Sri R.A Achuthanand, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 18.09.2024 in l.A No.294 of 2024 in O.S.No.41 of 2018' on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rajanna Sircilla.

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the revision petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit vrde O.S.No 4'l of 2018 seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants. Among the defendants, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 who came on record subsequently put up their claim over the Ac.0-23 gts of land i.e., the portion of the suit schedule property basing on registered gift deed dated 19.02.2015 executed by respondenUdefendant No.2. Whereupon, the revision petitioner/plaintiff came up with the impugned application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C, for amendment of the plaint to supplant the relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and to declare the -qegistered gift deeds as null and void. 2 .\

4. The Court below having observed that the application was filed at a be,ated stage i.e., after examination of the defendant witnesses and as the pleadings are falling short to satisfy the essentials to grant of pleadings, dismissed the application.

5. Learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that the suit was riled for perpetual injunction. However, after having knowledge about the execution of the registered gift deeds by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5 it became necessary seeking declaration of title and. for cancellation of registered gift deeds. Learned counsel further submits thal allowing the amendment application would comprehensively decide the issues between the parties, but the Court below without proper appreciation, dismissed the application. Hence, prayed for interference.

6. Learnecl counsel appearing for respondents pleaded that the impugned petition was at belated stage and allowing the amendment would reset the suit proceedings. He supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

7. I have perused the material on record.

8. Admittedly, by the date of impugned application, defendants examined five witnesses and the proceedings were set for their further evidence. At the outset, the record is \ 3 disclosing that, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 came on record in the yeat 2022 by claiming right over part of the schedule property' However, for the reasons best known to them' the petitioner/plaintiff remained silent till filing of impugned petition' Be that as it may, as per the petitioner, his claim for 9 perpetual injunction was against the respondent Nos'1 and 2 from interference with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The attending circumstances are demonstrating that the defence/stance of the respondent Nos'1 and 2 in the suit never prompted the revision petitioners to seek the relief of declaration of title and cancellation, though the gift deeds of the respondent Nos'3 to 5 are of the year 2015' Howsoever, these facts are revealing that even as per the revision petitioner/plaintiff there is no dispute as to the title over the suit schedule property between the revision petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the respondent Nos'3 to 5 are only successors in interest- ln this undisputed position' if the ( revision petitioner/plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim against respondent Nos.1 and 2 it would have a consequential effect on the claims of the respondent Nos.3 to 5' ln that view' at the fag end of the trial, the revision petitioner coming up with an $pplication seeking amendment and changing the suit cause by 4 setting up new pleadings, would be an attempt to set the clock back.

10. Furthermore, the relevant provision i.e., order Vl rule .17 of CPC specifies that unless the petitioner/party establishes and the Court comes to conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the prayer for amendment of pleading before commencement of trial, the petition cannot be allowed and in the present set of facts this essential element is falling short.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that 'n the absence of impropriety, the impugned order deserves affirmation. Resultantly, this revision petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand r:losed Sd/- N. S HARI ASSISTANT REG TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Raianna Sircilla 2. One CC to Srr K. Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri R.A. Achuthanand, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies r^Wi , t HIGH COURT DATED:2810112025 ORDER CRP.No.3479 of 2024 ( s'- E {iI41 1ri 6 0l tpn 2o6 t Dr-.SE,,trCHc0 t x -I' r: I DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ,r{