The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

1. Burugu Chandramma, Wife of Narsimha, Aged 59 years, Occ. Business, R/o Bheemanapally Village, Bhoodan Pochampally Mandal. Nalgonda District 2. Burugu Bhanuchandar, Son of Narsimha. Aged 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o Bheemanapally Village, Bhoodan Pochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 OS No. 55 oI 2023 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Choutuppal pending the disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. RAMA MOHAN RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THIT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CrVIL REVISION PETITION No.38O3 OF 2A23 ORDER: This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 3O.L0-2O23 passed in IA.No.168 of 2023 in OS.No.55 of 2023 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, at Choutuppal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff Iiled IA.No.168 of 2023 in OS.No.55 of 2023 against the respondents/defendants, under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC] praying to permit to amend the plaint and make consequential amendments. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said 1.A., uide order dated 3O.1O.2O23 obserrring that amending the plaint would change the nature and character of suit which is basing on a different cause of action. Aggrieved thereby, this Revision Petition is liled.

3. Heard Sri S.Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel for revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff, and Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/defendants. \ 2 SKS,J CRP.No.3803 OF 2023

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court committed grave error in dismissing I.A.No. 168 of 2023 and contended that the amendment as sought for, is necessar5r to determine the real question in controversy and to correct the' extent and survey numbers of the suit schedule properly. He further contended that the petitioner had frled suit seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction, but subsequently discovered that the suit schedule propertlr was actually comprised of two survey numbers, 137 12 and 117, as such, the petitioner filed the amendment petition to correct the plaint and include the correct survey numbers. He lamented that the trial Court failed to consider the submissions of petitioners, and emphasized the importance of allowing amendments to pleadings to determine the real question in controversy. He averred that the dismissal of the amendment petition was based on the incorrect ground that it would change the nature and character of the present suit, and asserted that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit, but merely would correct the extent and survey numbers of the suit schedule property. Therefore, he prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order. -----.---- 3 SKS,J CRP No.38O3 OF 2023

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent, vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, stating that there are no inrirmities or illegalities in the impugned order and that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition contending that the petitioner filed the said I.A., with mala fide intention aiming to create hurdles and harass the respondents while seeking declaration and possession of the property. He lamented that the attempt of petitioner to change the nature of the suit through an amendment petition is impermissible under law. He averred that initially, the petitioner frled a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of land in Sy.No. 137/2, but later sought to amend the suit to declaration of title based on adverse possession, ald that the same is not allowed. Therefore, he prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition, stating that the same lacks merits.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the trial Court dismissed IA.No.168 of 2023 primarily on the ground that in case, the amendments, as sought for, are made in the plaint, the nature and character of suit would change as different cause of adtion would be introduced and that such changes 4 SKS,J cRP.No.38O3 oF 2023 cannot be permitted in the proposition of law' Admittedly, in the present case, no written statements are filed by respondents as on the date of frling of amendment petition. As such, when there is no written statement and there is no defense in the case, amending the petition would cause no prejudice to the respondents/defendants. Further, even that amendments as sought for, are allowed, the respondents would always have liberty to file written statement basing on the amended pleas'

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar Vs' Ayyakannu and Aaotherr it was observed tbal ."on the auer.merlts made in the application, the same ought to haue been allou-ted,. If the focts alleged bg the plaintiff are not correct it is open for tLLe defendant to take such plea in the uitten statement and if the. plaintiff fails in sttbstantiating the factual auerments and/ or the defendant succeeds in substantiating the plea which he uould obuiouslg be permitted to raise in his pleading bg utag of consequential amendment then the suit sholl be liable to be dismissed. The defendant is not prejudiced, more so when ttte ' zooz (z)scc ssg 5 SKSJ CRP.No.3aO3 OF 2023 amendtnent uas sought for before the commencement of the tial"

8. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the factual matrix of the case, and so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the petitioner can be permitted to amend the plaint and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents as no written statement is filed by them before the trial Court. There are merits in this revision petition and the same is tiable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 30. lO.2O23 passed in lA.No.168 of 2023 in OS.No.55 of 2023 on the lile of the Junior Civil Judge, at Choutuppal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed l' I \ Sd/. P. CH, NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 0'J SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge at Choutuppal' Z. On" CC to Sri S. Rama Mohan Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Onu CC to Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies Plp/gh \$' HIGH COUR-T DATED:0310:t12025 ORDER CRP.No.3803 of 2023 Ia' 01 ti iY n25 ALLOWING TFIE C.R.P. I (*- rI