APHC010265962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. BUDDARAJU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU(DIED), (DIED) 2. BUDDARAJU VENUGOPALA VENKATA VARMA ,, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, HINDU AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. CHINNATHAPALLI DEVI,, W/O LATE SITHA RAMA RAJU, HINDU AGED 60 YEARS. RESIDENT OF SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. CHINNATHAPALLI UDAYA KUMARI,, W/O SAMBAMURTHY RAJU, HINDU AGED 58 YEARS. RESIDENT OF CHEEPURAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 1. ROUTHU PAPI NAIDU APPALA NAIDU, S/O LATE SATYAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. ROUTHU LAXMI SURYANARAYANA, S/O LATE SATYAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. ROUTHU RAMANA, S/O LATE SATYAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1276/2025 BUDDARAJU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU(DIED), (DIED) BUDDARAJU VENUGOPALA VENKATA VARMA ,, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, HINDU AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DEVI,, W/O LATE SITHA RAMA RAJU, HINDU AGED 60 YEARS. RESIDENT OF SEETHAMMADHARA, CHINNATHAPALLI UDAYA KUMARI,, W/O SAMBAMURTHY RAJU, HINDU AGED 58 YEARS. RESIDENT OF CHEEPURAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND ROUTHU PAPI NAIDU APPALA NAIDU, S/O LATE SATYAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ROUTHU LAXMI SURYANARAYANA, S/O LATE SATYAM NAIDU, YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ROUTHU RAMANA, S/O LATE SATYAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BUDDARAJU VENUGOPALA VENKATA VARMA ,, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA RAJU, HINDU AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DEVI,, W/O LATE SITHA RAMA RAJU, HINDU AGED 60 YEARS. RESIDENT OF SEETHAMMADHARA, CHINNATHAPALLI UDAYA KUMARI,, W/O SAMBAMURTHY RAJU, HINDU AGED 58 YEARS. RESIDENT OF CHEEPURAPALLI VILLAGE PETITIONER(S) ROUTHU PAPI NAIDU APPALA NAIDU, S/O LATE SATYAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ROUTHU LAXMI SURYANARAYANA, S/O LATE SATYAM NAIDU, YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, DATHIRAJERU MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ROUTHU RAMANA, S/O LATE SATYAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O UTTARAVILLI VILLAGE, RC,J C.R.P.No.1276 of 2025 2 ...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 pleased to set aside the order and decree made in I.A No. 688 of 2024 in O.S no.367 of 2015 dated 21.11.2024 on the file of the court of Senior Civil Judge Vizianagaram, and allow the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice and pass 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of O.S No.367 of 2015 /2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CKR ASSOCIATES The Court made the following: ORDER Challenging the legality and correctness of the orders dated 21.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.688 of 2024 in O.S.No.367 of 2015, the petitioners/plaintiffs therein preferred this Civil Revision Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that petitioner no.1 purchased the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed 30.03.1992 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by RC,J C.R.P.No.1276 of 2025 3 constructing a RCC slab house therein and the respondents are proclaiming that they would trespass into the plaint schedule property. 3. Pending disposal of the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.688 of 2024 under Order-6, Rule-17 of the Civil Procedure Code. Through the said amendment the petitioners sought to change the northern boundary from “vacant land belongs to Routhu Satyam” to “the way belongs to Routhu Satyam”, contending that as per the boundary recitals of the documents under which the property was purchased the northern boundary is way belongs to Routhu Satyam, however in the plaint schedule, due to typographical mistake the northern boundary was mentioned as “vacant land belongs to Routhu Satyam. 4. The respondents resisted the relief sought for amendment by filing counter contending that the petition was filed belatedly after completion of evidence of the petitioners and after D.W.1 was cross-examined. That the northern side of the plaint schedule property, the property purchased by the respondents exist and the respondents purchased the property much prior to the purchase made by the petitioners. That the amendment would change the nature of the suit and cause of action. 5. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the pleadings and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the petition, RC,J C.R.P.No.1276 of 2025 4 holding that the amendment petition was filed after commencement of trial and the petitioners failed to substantiate that despite due diligence, they could not raise the matter earlier and further the amendment would change the nature of the suit. 6. The order so passed by the learned trial Judge is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition. 7. Heard Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel representing M/s. CKR Associates, learned counsel for respondents. 8. Sri Bonu Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the petition and the grounds of revision, would contend that amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties and the same would not in any way change the nature of the suit and cause of action, however, the learned trial Judge erroneously dismissed the petition in utter ignorance of the settled law that amendment can be allowed even after commencement of trial and that amendment of one of the boundaries would not change the nature of the suit. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 9. On the other hand, Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for respondents, would contend that the amendment petition was filed belatedly RC,J C.R.P.No.1276 of 2025 5 after closure of evidence of petitioners’ side and that too after examination of D.W.1 and further the petitioners’ failed to demonstrate that despite of due diligence they could not file the petition before commencement of trial. He would further contend that amendment of one of the boundaries would definitely change the nature of the suit as well cause of action and the learned trial Judge upon meticulous analysis of facts of the case and the purport of proviso to Order-6, Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure had rightly dismissed the petition and the same requires no interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 10. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 11. Under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a court has the power to allow an amendment at any stage of the proceedings. However, a crucial proviso was added to this rule to prevent unnecessary delays. This proviso states that after the trial has begun, no amendment shall be allowed unless the court concludes that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 12. Adding to the above, the amendment must be necessary to determine the real questions or issues in controversy between the parties. It should not be sought to introduce a new or different case that is foreign to RC,J C.R.P.No.1276 of 2025 6 the original pleadings. The amendment should not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party that cannot be compensated for in terms of costs. 13. The power to allow an amendment after the trial has started is discretionary, and courts are generally guided by the principle of doing substantial justice between the parties. They aim to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure that all relevant issues are decided in a single proceeding. 14. Procedural laws are the handmaid, not the mistress of justice. The procedural laws should serve to facilitate justice but not to hinder it. Procedural rules are designed to help courts hear and decide cases fairly, but they should not be applied in a way that prevents a just outcome. The procedural irregularities should not override substantive justice. 15. It is fairly settled that the person who initiates the lawsuit (the plaintiff) has the primary responsibility to present sufficient evidence to prove the facts supporting their claims and to establish their legal right to a favorable judgment. If the plaintiff fails to provide convincing proof, they will lose the case, regardless of any weaknesses in the defendant's argument. The petitioners being the plaintiffs must establish their case of interference of the defendants with the plaint schedule property. RC,J C.R.P.No.1276 of 2025 7 16. The petitioners sought amendment of northern boundary of the plaint schedule property claiming that the sale deed under which the said property was purchased clearly mentions the northern boundary as the ‘way belongs to Routhu Satyam’, but due to typographical mistake the northern boundary was mentioned as the ‘vacant land belongs to Routhu Satyam’. 17. The suit is filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the petitioners/plaintiffs, which was purchased under a registered sale deed. As already stated supra, the petitioners contend that the northern boundary of the plaint schedule property is not in accordance with the boundary recital of the sale deed. 18. Since the amendment is aimed to reconcile the northern boundary of the plaint schedule property with the recital of the sale deed under which the property was purchased and as it won’t change neither the cause of action nor the nature of the suit, mere delay in filing the said petition is not a good ground to dismiss the amendment petition. 19. Therefore, in order to advance substantial justice between the parties, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure that all relevant issues are decided in a single proceeding, the amendment sought has to be allowed. Needless to observe that the respondents will have every opportunity to RC,J C.R.P.No.1276 of 2025 8 disprove that the amended boundary is not in accordance with the boundary recital of the sale deed relied on by the petitioners. 20. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram, in I.A.No.688 of 2024 in O.S.No.367 of 2015. Consequently, the petition in I.A.No.688 of 2024 in O.S.No.367 of 2015 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order dated 19.06.2025 shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR