APHC010542082022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2022/2022 Between: 1. KUNCHALA ANJALI @ ANJAMMA, W/O. ANJAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.7-132, MANGAMUR ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHUNDURI ANJANEYULU, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged 54 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o. Doddavaram Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District ...RESPONDENT 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 topleased to set aside the Order dated 18-08-2022 passed in IA.No.1903 of 2019 in OS.No.522 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Ongole, consequently allow the said IA.No.1903 of 2019 as prayed for by granting liberty to the petitioner/plaintiff to file a fresh suit, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in OS.No.522 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Ongole, pending disposal of the main CRP, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MARRI VENKATA RAMANA The Court made the following: Date of reserve : 01.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 08.05.2026 Date of Upload : 08.05.2026 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2022 of 2022 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in IA.No.1903 of 2019 in OS.No.522 of 2015, whereby the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole had dismissed the IA filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the plaint along with the schedule in the plaint. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.522 of 2015 pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. It is submitted that the necessity for amending the plaint arose at the time of adducing further evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. It is submitted that the counsel representing the plaintiff noticed that there was a discrepancy in the actual measurement of the site and that there was no encroachment on part of 2nd defendant and that encroachment was made only by the 1st defendant by way of extending his building portion and constructing a basement filled with gravel to raise vegetables. As such, the encroachment portion to an extent of 6.5 feet wide was to be sought to be amended and a draft plan was also sought to be introduced. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware as to what exactly was submitted to the Court by his earlier counsel and as such a new counsel was appointed and on his advice the petitioner found it appropriate to submit the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking 3 amendment of the plaint and the schedule of property. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) & Ors.1 It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the amendment applications are to be allowed for determining the real question in controversy, provided, it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the Court should avoid a hyper technical approach and ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 4. It is submitted that no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents if the petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint as adequate opportunity for filing additional written statement would be definitely available for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was rightly dismissed by the trial Court and it is point out that the defendants in the suit had filed a common written statement and the petitioner had filed the application against the 1st defendant only. 6. It is submitted that it is not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has given up his claim in the suit by not pressing the suit against the 2nd defendant. In such circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner against only the 1st defendant is neither permissible nor maintainable. It 1 SLP (Civil) 30324 of 2019, decided on 24.09.2024 4 is also submitted that Order VI Rule 17 CPC mandates the party to exhibit the due diligence before seeking the relief of amendment. On the facts of this case, the suit was filed in the year 2015 and IA seeking for amendment in the year 2019, that to after commencement of trial. It is submitted that even as per the averments of the affidavit filed in IA.No.1903 of 2019, the petitioner had averred that the necessity for filing the application arose at the stage of further evidence. It is submitted that the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is maintainable only before commencement of trial. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 8. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner has also observed that the amendment should not change the cause of action, soon as to set up an entirely new case, falling to the case set up in the plaint. 9. On the facts of this case, the petitioner filed the suit against defendant Nos.1 and 2 alleging encroachment and the petitioner now intends to change the cause of action of the suit and set up a new case against the 1st defendant only. This certainly is contrary to the set up in the plaint. That apart, the defendants have filed a written statement and that para 4 of the written statement, the defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and have specifically averred that the father of the plaintiff had no right to execute the settlement deed. When the defendants have jointly denied the right of 5 the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not have chosen to avoid arraying defendant No.2 as party respondent in IA.No.1903 of 2019. 10. It is evidently clear that the plaintiff sought to amend the pleadings after commencement of trial. This is not permissible under law, the petitioner has not demonstrated the diligence for maintaining the application for amending the pleadings after commencement of trial. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the order under challenge in present Civil Revision Petition does not deserve to be interfered, as the same is well reasoned and well considered. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 08.05.2026 KGM 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2022 OF 2022 Dated 08.05.2026 KGM