APHC010118292017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4514/2017 Between: 1. PAGADALA RAMANA REDDY (DIED), SPSR NELLROE DIST & 2 OTHERS, - 2. PAGADALA PRATAP REDDY, S/O SIVARAMI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O VEDAYAPALEM, NELLORE TOWN, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 3. MALLIPUDI MALLESWARI, W/O KODANDARAMI REDDY, HINDU, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O POLAMRAJUKUNTA, DUVVURIPALEM VILLAGE, GUDUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. KOTA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY SPSR NELLORE DIST FIVE OTHERS, S/O LATCHA REDDY, HINDU, DEC: AGRICULTURIST, AGED 47 YEARS, R/O MUSUNURU VILLAGE, KAVALI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 2. NEELAPPAREDDY KRISHNA REDDY DIED AS PER LRS, - 3. NEELAPAREDDY SANKARAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED 66 YEARS, R/O MUSUNURU VILLAGE KAVALI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 4. NEELAPAREDDY MALAKONDA REDDY, S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O SALUCHINTALA VILLAGE, KOVURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 5. PAGADALA VIJAYAMMA, W/O MALLA REDDY HINDU, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MUSUNURU VILLAGE, KAVALI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. 6. PAGADALA KAMALAMMA DIED, W/O LATE RAMANA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O VEDAYAPALEM, NELLORE TOWN SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, A.P. (RESPONDENT NO.6 IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS PETITION) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SRINIVAS KARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SUDHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4514 of 2017 ORDER: 1. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.474 of 2011 in O.S.No.18 of 2009 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali. 2. The petitioners are plaintiffs in the suit and the suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential injunction. The suit was filed in the year 2009 and defendant No.2 during his lifetime executed a sale deed dated 04.07.2011. The petitioner filed I.A.No.474 of 2011 seeking to amend the pleadings and bring on record pleadings with regard to the subsequent event of registration of a sale deed dated 04.07.2011. The learned Judge after considering the pleadings and after hearing the submissions of the parties to the suit dismissed I.A.No.474 of 2011 holding that the proposed amendment if permitted would result in injustice to the respondents and that the proposed amendment is not at all necessary for determining the real issues in controversy and that the proposed amendment would change the cause of action as well. On these grounds, I.A.No.474 of 2011 is dismissed and this court on 03.11.2017 had granted stay of all further proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the amendment of the pleadings was necessitated on account of the subsequent development of filing of the suit. The sale deed was executed by the 2nd defendant after filling of the suit, as such the amendment was essential to be carried out. It is also submitted that it was beyond the possibility of the petitioners to file the deed at the time of filing of the suit. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the defendant No.2 had no right or title to execute sale deed and that the petition for amendment of the pleadings could not have been filed after commencement of trial and further submits that Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be invoked prior to the commencement of the trial and that in the present case, the respondents had filed their written statements and the petitioner had also deposed as PW.1 in the suit and was also cross-examined. At this stage, the petitioners could not have filed this application for amendment of pleadings. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. 6. Perused the record. 7. Order VI Rule 17 reads as below: Amendment of pleadings.— The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 8. On the facts of this case, the subsequent event of registration of sale deed dated 04.07.2011 is beyond the comprehension of the petitioners to have filed it along with the suit. The petitioners in spite of diligence could not have filed a document which was registered subsequent to the filing of the suit. 9. That apart the objection of the respondents that the 2nd defendant had no power or right to execute the sale deed is a issue of fact which can be determined by the court. The respondents shall also have ample opportunity to file additional written statement on the additional pleadings raised by the petitioners. The trial court may also frame an additional issue on the same for determining the suit on merits. 10. On these grounds, this court is inclined to allow this Civil Revision Petition. Order dated 01.08.2017 in I.A.No.474 of 2011 in O.S.No.18 of 2009 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali is hereby set aside. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:07.08.2025 Dvs THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N 136 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4514 of 2017 Date: 07.08.2025 Dvs