IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI **** CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO: 1015 of 2025 MAHAMMED SALEEM,, S/O.LATE HAZI MOHAMMED SIDDIQ, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.10-1-7/2, GUDI VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, POST AND DISTRICT AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONER(S) AND NEELADRI APPANNA, S/O.LATE LATCHUMAIAH @ KIYYAM, HINDU, AGED 58 YEARS, CULTIVATION AND RICKSHAW PULLER, R/O.D.NO.7-107, GANDHI NAGAR COLONY, PEDDAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S): DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 26.09.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the order? : Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the order? : Yes/No _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J * HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITON NO: 1015 of 2025 % 26.09.2025 C.R.P.No.1015 of 2025 MAHAMMED SALEEM,, S/O.LATE HAZI MOHAMMED SIDDIQ, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.10-1-7/2, GUDI VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, POST AND DISTRICT AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONER(S) Versus NEELADRI APPANNA, S/O.LATE LATCHUMAIAH @ KIYYAM, HINDU, AGED 58 YEARS, CULTIVATION AND RICKSHAW PULLER, R/O.D.NO.7-107, GANDHI NAGAR COLONY, PEDDAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S): ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy learned counsel ^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri Venkat Sailendra G, learned counsel < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) (2009) 10 SCC 84 2) 2023 SCC Online (S.C.) 256 This Court made the following: APHC010176222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1015/2025 Between: 1. MAHAMMED SALEEM,, S/O.LATE HAZI MOHAMMED SIDDIQ, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.10-1-7/2, GUDI VEEDHI, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, POST AND DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED SABBEER,, S/O.LATE HAZI MOHAMMED SIDDIQ MUSLIM, AGED 45 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.7-6-40, ENUGUMAHAL STREET, BHRRAVARI THOTA JUNCTION, NEW COLONY, SRIKAKULAM TOWN, POST AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NEELADRI APPANNA, , S/O.LATE LATCHUMAIAH @ KIYYAM, HINDU, AGED 58 YEARS, CULTIVATION AND RICKSHAW PULLER, R/O.D.NO.7-107, GANDHI NAGAR COLONY, PEDDAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 2. KHAIROON HAZIYINI, (DIED) . 3. MAFROJA BHANU, (DIED) 4. NEELADRI VENKATA RAO, S/O.LATE SURAYYA, HINDU, AGED 53 YEARS. CULTIVATION AND TETHERING CATTLE, R/O.D.NO.5-27, MAIN STREET, PEDDAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. ...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 toPetitioner beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Honble Court against order and decree passed in IA No.254/2024 in O.S.No.03/2017 dt.11.03.2025 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to suspend the order and decree passed in I.A.No.254 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2017 dt.11.03.2024 on the file of the court of the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam pending CRP in this Hon’ble Court and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI The Court made the following: ORDER Defendants 3 and 4 filed the above revision against the order dated 11.03.2025 in I.A.No.254 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2017 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. Respondent No.1 herein, being the plaintiff filed O.S.No.3 of 2017 for declaration of title and consequentially for recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, described as Lot No.1 (an extent of Ac.1-77 cents of dry land in survey Nos.18, 19 and 20 with corresponding new survey No.45-6) and Lot No.2 (an extent of Ac.0-37 cents of dry land in survey Nos.18, 19 and 20 with corresponding new survey No.45/4). 3. In the plaint, it was contended, inter alia, that the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff’s father in a partition, and the revenue authorities updated ROR and issued a pattadar passbook and title deeds in his favour in respect of Ac.1-77 cents. When defendant No.5 and others tried to encroach upon Ac.00-97 cents of land, the plaintiff’s father filed O.S.No.221 of 2004 seeking a perpetual injunction. On the death of the plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff was impleaded in the suit. However, the said suit was dismissed. The plaintiff filed an appeal with a delay, and the same is pending before the District Court at Srikakulam. ii) While so, defendant No.5 sold the total extent of land of Ac.1-38 cents (Ac.00-45 cents, Ac.00-38 and Ac.0-55 in survey Nos.46, 45/4 and 84/1 respectively) under a registered sale deed dated 15.09.2004, to defendant No.1. iii) The plaintiff’s father, during his lifetime, executed a testament dated 10.01.2009 bequeathing all his properties, including the suit schedule property and later died on 29.08.2010. The subject matter of the suit O.S.No.221 of 2004 has nothing to do with the present suit schedule property. iv) In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded that in the guise of the deed, created between defendant No.5 and other defendants, all the defendants have been trying since last year i.e. December 2015, to grab the plaint schedule lands by illegally dispossessing the plaintiff by trespassing and encroaching upon the same. Hence, the suit is filed for declaration of title and for recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule property, duly evicting the defendants therefrom. 4. Defendants 1, 3 and 4 filed a written statement, and they are contesting the suit. 5. After completion of the trial, when the matter was posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.160 and 161 of 2022, seeking amendment of the plaint. Both the interlocutory applications were dismissed on 17.10.2022. Later, he filed I.A.No.211 of 2022 to reopen the suit and 212 of 2022, seeking amendment of the plaint. They were dismissed on 19.12.2022. Against the dismissal order in I.A.Nos.211 and 212 of 2022, the plaintiff filed two C.R.P.Nos.313 and 314 of 2023 respectively. Both the revisions were dismissed by the High Court on 24.04.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.254 of 2024, seeking an amendment of the plaint by inserting a new sub-para (p) before sub para (o) in para No.III, which reads as follows: “the defendants took advantage of dismissal of aforementioned CRP 313/2023, and the defendants 3 to5 have illegally trespassed into the suit schedule land in the first week of December, 2024 when the plaintiff and his family members went to Visakhapatnam, for the plaintiff’s medical check up …” 6. Defendants 3 and 4 filed a counter and opposed the application. 7. The trial Court, by order dated 11.03.2025, allowed the application on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants on or before 24.03.2025, and in case the respondents/defendants refuse to receive the amount, a direction was given to deposit the same by demand draft. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision has been filed. 8. Heard Sri S. Lakshminaryana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkat Sailendra G, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the plaintiff, having filed the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession of the property cannot be allowed to plead that he was dispossessed, pending the suit and thereby allowed to change the cause of action. He would also submit that when the suit is posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed the above applications from time to time. He would also contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the rule of res judicata would apply at different stages of the suit. However, the trial Court failed to appreciate the same. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the order of the trial Court. He would contend that pending the suit, the plaintiff was dispossessed and hence, the amendment was necessitated. He would also submit that the cause of action arose pending the suit, and the plaintiff filed the above application seeking amendment and hence, res judicata will not apply to the fact situation. 11. The point for consideration is whether the order, dated 11.03.2025 in I.A.No.254 of 2024 in O.S.No.03 of 2017 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, suffers from any irregularity or perversity, warranting interference of this Court? 12. Shorn of all other details, the relief sought in the plaint reads as follows: “a) for declaration of the plaintiff’s title over the plaint schedule described Lot-1 (One) and Lot-2 (Two) lands; b) for consequential relief of recovery of vacant possession of the plaint schedule described Lot-1 (One) and Lot-2 (Two) lands, after duly evicting the defendants there-from; …” 13. In sub-paras ‘n’ and ‘o’ of the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded as follows: “n) … under the guise of said settlement deed got created in between themselves, in collusion with the 5th defendant, all the defendants are trying since last one year i.e., since December, 2015 (Two thousand fifteen), to grab the plaintiff’s plaint schedule described lands by illegally dispossessing the plaintiff there-from by trespassing and encroaching the same. o) Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for declaration of his title over the suit schedule described properties against the defendants and for recovery of vacant possession of the same after duly evicting them there-from and for other relieves.” 14. As seen from the record, the trial in the suit was completed, and the suit is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff initially filed I.A.Nos.160 and 161 of 2022 seeking amendment of the plaint by substituting the words ‘grab the plaintiff’s plaint schedule land by illegally dispossessing the plaintiff there-from’ in para III (n) with the words ‘all the defendants are trying since last one year i.e., since December, 2015 to grab the plaintiffs plaint schedule described lands and illegally dispossessed the plaintiff there from by trespassing and encroaching the same.’ The defendants filed a counter and opposed the said applications. The trial Court, by common order dated 17.10.2022, dismissed both the applications. 15. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.211 of 2022 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit and I.A.No.212 of 2022 seeking amendment of the plaint, as under: “in para No.III (o) after the sentence “hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for declaration of his title over the suit schedule properties against the defendants” “for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule described land and in the alternative” before the sentence “for recovery of vacant possession of the same after duly evicting them there-from” …” 16. Thus, by way of the above amendment, the plaintiff sought alternative prayers either for a permanent injunction or for recovery of possession. The trial Court, by common order dated 19.12.2022, dismissed both the applications. 17. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed two C.R.P.Nos.313 and 314 of 2023, respectively. Both the revisions were dismissed by the High Court on 24.04.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.254 of 2024 to amend the plaint, as stated supra. Page 9 of 12 18. When the suit is at the stage of arguments, the plaintiff kept on filing one or another interlocutory application. The present application is filed seeking amendment of the plaint, pleading that after dismissal of C.R.P.No.313 of 2023, the defendants took advantage and illegally trespassed into the suit schedule property in the first week of December 2024 in his absence. 19. As noted supra, the relief in the plaint is for declaration and recovery of possession by evicting the defendants therefrom. The relief ‘eviction’ in the suit presupposes that the plaintiff is out of possession. Thus, the plaintiff pleaded for possession of the property, sought a declaration and consequential recovery of possession by evicting the defendants. Having pleaded so, after completion of the trial, the plaintiff again sets up a new pleading that he was dispossessed in December 2024, which, in the opinion of this court, is inconsistent, and the plaintiff is also changing the cause of action, which is impermissible. 20. In fact, the plaintiff was cross-examined on 27.03.2019. In the chief affidavit filed by the plaintiff, he pleaded as follows: “I became helpless and the defendants 1 to 4 they themselves created settlement deeds in between themselves and by colluding with my agnate-the 5th defendant who had sold some property in their favour, forcibly, dispossessed me by fixing fencing poles and did not allow me to enjoy the plaint schedule lands …” 21. Thus, having pleaded dispossession, after cross-examination on 27.03.2019 by the defendants, and after dismissal of earlier applications, the plaintiff filed the present application i.e. I.A.No.254 of 2024, seeking amendment as stated supra. It seems that the plaintiff is procrastinating on the suit. It is thus, clear that the application for amendment was filed at the fag end of the litigation after attempting to defer the final arguments. The conduct of the petitioner/plaintiff is certainly not bona fide. Page 10 of 12 22. The trial Court, without considering these crucial aspects, proceeded on the ground that the nature of the suit would not be changed. No doubt, the nature of the suit would not be changed. However, the cause of action and conduct of the plaintiff also need to be considered. 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons1, after considering several judicial precedents vis-à- vis amendment of pleadings, summed as follows: Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments 63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. 1 (2009) 10 SCC 84 24. Normally, when the nature of the suit is not affected by the amendment, such an amendment will be permitted. However, one should not be oblivious of the cause of action and the facts of the case. The plaintiff, in this case, having sought eviction of the defendants, now put forth a plea of dispossession in the year, 2024 after completion of evidence, thereby changing the cause of action. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ganesh Prasad vs. Rajeshwar Prasad and others2, held as under:- "37. .... All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed liberally which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided that the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken. 38. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. 26. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would canvass the proposition of law that res judicata will apply at different stages in the suit, the said proposition does not apply to the facts of the case. 27. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that costs awarded by the trial Court have not been received is recorded. The trial court, in the considered opinion of this court, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it judiciously and, in fact, exceeded its jurisdiction, and allowed the application. 28. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the order was passed by the trial Court by exceeding its discretion, and it suffers from illegality and perversity. Hence, the order under challenge brooks the interference of this 2 2023 SCC Online (S.C.) 256 Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 29. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Order dated 11.03.2025 in I.A.No.254 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2017 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, is hereby set aside. I.A.No.254 of 2024 stands dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 2017 and evidence is completed, as seen from the record, the trial Court shall take steps for expeditious disposal of the suit, keeping in view the circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/2022, dated 23.11.2022. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 26.09.2025 IKN