The High Court · 2025

2. C.Yadamma, Wo Murali Sagar D/o late C.Srinvasulu, Aged 34 years. Occ. Housewife, R/o House No 27-146, Pyata Gadda, Wanaparthy.

3. C,Naresh, S/o late Srinivaulu, aged 32 years Occ Agriculture R/o House No 27-164, Pyata Gadda. Wanaparthy.

4. C.Hemavathi, D/o C.Srinivasulu, aged 29 years, Occ Household, R/c H No 27-164, Pyata Gadda, Wanaparthy. ...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 15 1 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 suit in OS No. 47 OF 2012 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparty. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Counsel for the Respondents: D L PANDU The Court made the following: ORDER E!..,--.*r,.- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA,".I,ISIIETTY C.R.P.No.3694 ot2023 ORDER: This [i.",ision Petition is filed assailine thr order dated

10.11.2023 pass-'cl in 1.A.No.424 ol 202i in O.S,No.. 7 o1-2012 on the trle of the Principal Senior CiviI Judge, Wanaparthy, wheleunder and whereby the application tiled b1, he petitioner undcr Order VI ltule l7 CPC was disrnissccl.

2. l-leald Sr Rajagopallavan 'l'ayi, learrred cor nsel lbr the revision petitioner and Sri D.l-.Pandu, lealned counsel for respondents

3. The petitirner herein is the defendant and rer pondents are plaintiffs in the suit

4. Brief factrral rnatrix of the case necessary fbr a,ijudication of the plesent Rcv sion Pctition are that respondents t led a suit in O.S.No.47 of 20 l2 against the petitioner lbl declaratit,n of'title and consequential rclief of pcrpetlral injunction in tespc:t of the suit schedule property. The petitioner entered appearal-cr: and filed written statemcrt on 04.06.2012, denying tl.rc suit claim of the respondents, issrres wele frarned, entire evidence ri, rs concluded and the mattcr ,.\'as coming up lor arguments, at tl lrt stage, the 2 LNA, J CRP.No.3694 of 2023 petitioner fi1ed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CpC for amendment of the written statement by deleting line Nos.5 and 6 of para- 1 I and inserting para which reads as nnder:- "Srinivasulu i.e., falher o;t' pLaintiff Nos 2 to 4 and plaintiJJ' No. I have sold Plot Nos.5 and 6 to the vendor of the defendant-Shanthanna by executing an unregistered sale deed dated 11.02.1992 with specific boundaries, since the patta slonds in the name of Kistanna, the vendor of the defendant-Shonthanna ohtained lhe registered sale deed doted 20.04.1998 f'om the said pattadar-Kistanna to avoid the legal complications. " 5 6 The respondents filed counter resisting the said application The trial Court, by duly taking into consideration the pleadings in the application and the contentions put forth by lean-red counsel for both the parlies, disrnissed the said application by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, this Revision Petition is hled.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Courl has dismissed the application on erroneous observations, without appreciating the reasons stated for amendment of written statement. He further submitted that at para 1 1 of the written statement, it was eroneously mentioned that the partner of the vendor of respondent No. i by name Srinivasulu i.e., father of respondent Nos.2 to 4 sold Plot Nos.5 and 6 to vendor of the . +Fi7 l LNA, J ('R '. h'o.3694 of 2023 petitioner-Shantlramma under a registered sale dee(l \v ith specific boundaries mentioned therein, instcad of mentioning that the said Srinir,'asulu sold Plot Nos.5 and 6 to thc vendor ol rre petitioner- Shanthamma under an unregistered sale dced datc,l 14.02. 1988 with speciflc bcundaries, since the patta stands in the nante of Kistanna, the vendor of petitioner-Shanthamma obtaincd a registered sale leed dated 20.04.1998 tiorn the sLid pattadar- Kistanna. He lirrther subnritted that the trial Court t isntissed thc application onLv on the glound of dclay and lacltcs r n the parl o1' the petitioner in filing the application and with l'ur1he observation that the amendnrent would cause injustice to other' ;ide and that sarnc is not nt: (:cssar), Iirr thc- puryose o1' detelnr ir ing tlte real question in cont|oversy bel.ween the parties. t{e fu|Ll er. submitted that the suit is llled for declaration ol- title and cons!'r uential relief of perpetual in junction and as such, tlte arncndntcnr r oLrghr lbr by the petitioner is crucial for proper adjudicalion ol th: rnatter.and prayed to allow t:e Revision.

8. Per contra, learned counsel fbr the respondents s rblnitted that Revision is devoid of merits and the petitioner has f I ited to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned or<li r and hence, the Revision is liable to bc dismisscd. I Ie firr.ther subn ittcd that the l l 4 LNA, J CRP.No.3691 of 2023 petitioner filed written statement in the year 2012, whereas the application for amendment was filed after a lapse of 11 years, that too, when the matter was coming up for arguments and thus, there are clear laches on the part of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitlcd to any indulgence of this Court and if the Revision is allowed, the same rvould cause injustice and hardship to the respondents 9- Perusal of record would disclose that the suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction t respect of Plot Nos.5 and 6 adr.neasuring 333.3 square yards in Sy.No.l007/E. In the plaint, it is avemed that respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 to 4-Cheerla Slinivasulu jointlv purchased land admeasuring Ac.O. 18 guntas fonning part of Sy.No. 1007 fi'om its original ou,ner under a regislered sale deed and subsequently, they also pulchased anothcr cxtent of Ac.0.18 guntas of land in Sy.No. 1007/E under registered sale deed and they converted the total land admeasuring Ac.0.36 guntas into plots and sold some of the Plots to various persons, however, Plot Nos.5 and 6 are not sold. It is further averred that in December, 20 I 1 , on verification of Encumbrance Certificate, respondent No.l came to know that Plot Nos.5 and 6 were entered in the name of 5 LNA, J CR D.No.3694 of 2023 Shanthanna, u4r() sold thc same to petitioner and that lhanthanna is no way concemed with the said plots and created lal ;e documents and as such, the same is not binding on the respondents. The suit is filed in view of i:loud created over the title of the respr rndents

10. The petitioner filed application to amend the written statement whereLn he intends to incorporate the detaill of registered sale deed obtained by him from Shanthanna in respr ct of the suit Plots. Further, tiom the pleadings of the plaint, it is cr iclent that the respondents thcrnselves have stated aboul the registc-ed sale deed whereby Shanthanna executed sale deed in lavour of retitioner and also placed on record a ceftifred copy o[ the sa d sale deed. I 'fherefore, in the teeth of the categorical admi;sior.r ol the respondents in the plaint as regards the execution ot sale deed in favour of petitioner, in the considered opinion of t ris Court the amendment application filed by the petil"ioner to ame rcl para- l l of the rvritten statement is not necessary for determi ring the real questions in corLtroversy between the parties, as rig rtly obserwed by the trial Courr in the impugned order.

11. That apart, it is perlinent to note that the prese rt application was filed when r-he matter was coming up for argunt,:nts, that too, after a lapse ol 11 years from the date of filin3 of u,ritten 6 LNA, J CR?.No.3691 oJ 202-l ,!* statement, as such, it appears that the petitioner fited the present application only to protract the litigation. There are clear laches on the part of the petitioner and as such, the application is not liable to be entertained on this ground alone

12. In view of the above, this Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed I 3. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Pctitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// S - MOHD. ISMAIL TY REGISTRAR S TION OFFICER To, '1, The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. 2. One CC to SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI D L PANDU, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies SS/gh \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:141O712025 I ORDER CRP.No.3694 of 2023 2o lFP 2tt25 ..' \.i\\ ,/ DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS {:>--= 1)