APHC010482992021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1379/2021 Between: 1. B.M.RAVICHANDRA BABU, /O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O BAIRUGANIPALLI VILLAGE, KUPPAM POST 85 MANDAL, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. R J VENUGOPAL, (DIED) PER LRS. 2. J V KAMAL KUMAR, S/O R.J. VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO.14-608, NORTH PALACE ROAD, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. K PREM SAI, S/O J.V.KAMAL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O D.NO.14-608, NORTH PALACE ROAD, KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. G SOMA SEKHAR, S/O R.J. GOVINDA RAJULU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. GOLD SMITH, R/O 103, UPPATHOTA GOUNDER LANE, UPPARA STREET, COIMBATORE ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition and to set aside the Order dated 14.12.2020 passed in I.A.No.479 of 2016 in 0.S.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 Order dated 14.12.2020 passed in I.A.No.479 of 2016 in 0.S.No,18 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARANADHA RAJU KATTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 Order: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. No. 479 of 2016 in O.S. No. 18 of 2009, whereby the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, vide order dated 14.12.2020. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit was filed for bare injunction in the year 2009 and, after a lapse of seven years, the plaintiffs thought it appropriate to amend the prayer from injunction to seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed a written statement in the suit and that even as per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiffs had categorically stated that the defendants had conspired and appeared to have brought into existence a fabricated sale deed, purporting that the 1st defendant executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd defendant on 22.11.2008, and that the plaintiff had also obtained an encumbrance certificate on 19.01.2009 for confirming the said transaction. 3. It is submitted that the plaintiffs were aware of the alleged sale deed even as on the date of filing of the suit as well. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs could not have been permitted to file an application seeking amendment of the plaint after a lapse of seven years, particularly when the relief of declaration is barred by limitation of three years. It is submitted that 4 the learned Judge erred in allowing the application, unmindful of the settled legal position with regard to limitation. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the necessity for seeking amendment arose subsequent to the filing of the suit and that the cause of action for filing the application arose on 10.01.2016 during the pendency of the suit proceedings. In view of the changed circumstances, the plaintiffs thought it appropriate to seek amendment of the prayer. It is also submitted that the learned Judge has passed a reasoned order and that the petitioner would have ample opportunity of filing an additional written statement to the amended prayer in the plaint. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 6. The order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, does not warrant any interference, as the application seeking amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed much prior to the commencement of trial. It is also observed by the learned Judge that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the same can be adjudicated upon after a full-fledged trial. The reasons assigned by the learned Judge do not warrant interference, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-considered and well-reasoned order. The issue of limitation shall be decided by the trial Court at the time of final disposal. 5 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 06.05.2026 PNS