APHC010312252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY.THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST ® TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1454 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court, against the Order dated 16.05.2025 in lA No.768 of 2024 in OS No.150 of 2019 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kothavalasa. Between: Smt. Mycherla Jayamma, W/o.Sri Mycherla Appanna Dora, Aged about 55 years. Housewife, R/o. Singavaram village, Vepada Mandal, Vizianagaram district. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Nallamilli Amareswara Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged about 33 years R/o Door No.45-2-60/23/3, Ramachandra Nagar, Akkayyapalem Visakhapatnam. ...Respondent/Defendant lA 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 to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 150 of 2019 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kothavalasa. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: CKR ASSOCIATES The Court made the following order: APHC010312252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) m [3332] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1454/2025 Between: 1.SMT MYCHERLA JAYAMMA, W/O.SRI MYCHERLA APPANNA DORA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, VILLAGE, VEPADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. R/O. SINGAVARAM ...PETITIONER AND 1.NALLAMILLI AMARESWARA REDDY, S/o.Venkata Reddy, aged about R/o. Door No.45-2-60/23/3, 33 years, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. Ramachandra Nagar, ...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 to Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Hon'ble Court, against the Order dated 16.05.2025 in I.A No.768 of 2024 in OS No.150 of 2019 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kothavalasa, lA 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S No.150 of 2019 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kothavalasa, pending disposal of the above revision petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G RAMAGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: 1.CKR ASSOCIATES ! ^ 2 > The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the order, dated 16.05.2025, passed in Interlocutory Application No.768 of 2024 in Original Suit No.150 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kothavalasa, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in Original Suit No.150 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kothavalasa. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the said suit for Permanent Injunction. In the said suit, she filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.768 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17, Section 151 of CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to amend the name of the village, where the schedule property is Vepada’ instead of ‘Banadi’ in the plaint and plaint schedule. The said application has been dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2025. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. situated i.e. Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel, representing. M/s CKR Associates, 4. learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit in support of Interlocutory Application, contended that the Court below has failed to see the 3 purport of Order VI Rule 17 CPC in a right perspective. He further submits that if the said application is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant. Further, the cause of action of the plaintiff remains unchanged and the nature of the suit will not be altered. In fact there is no serious dispute with regard to description of the schedule property and its identity. He further submitted that if the said amendment is not allowed, it would adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. As such, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit filed to the said Interlocutory Application, contended that the said Interlocutory application has been filed at belated stage after framing the issues. The petitioner has not made out a case for seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property as required under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. No valid grounds raised or urged warranting interference of this Court, as such prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not take away the right of the parties to file such an application, and it can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. 7. 8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.768 of 2024 seeking amendment of the village mentioned in the plaint and the Plaint schedule i.e., ‘vepada’ village 9. A District. The material on record of the chief affidavit, it was noticed that the suit schedule property was wrongly mentioned as instead of ‘Banadi’ village in Vizianagaram shows that at the time of preparation the village name in ■Banadi village instead of 'Vepada viliage’. To the said application, the the averments inter alia respondent/defendant filed counter denying the duty of the plaintiff to file a suit by mentioning correct contending that it is schedule of the property and once the suit filed and ad-interim injunction is the schedule of the property annexed granted in I.A No.826 of 2019 basing on to the plaint by the plaintiff, amending the location of the schedule property in schedule thereafter, will change the nature of the the plaint as well as plaint property. The Court below, application by duly taking into respondent/defendant in Muthyam Suryanarayana v. Bondugula Varya after hearing the parties, dismissed the said consideration the judgment relied by Reddy and others [2021 (4) ALT 245 (TS)] of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the different to the facts of the present case. The case by the Court below involved a dispute regarding boundaries, however, the present case pertains only to the incorrect mention of the name of the village. The Court below, without going into the facts of the present dismissed the said application by relying on the judgment referred 10. It is the contention facts of the said case are relied upon case, supra. dispute with regard to identity of the property by both parties. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner Admittedly, there is no 11. , since ■M 5 there is no dispute with regard to identity of the allowed, the nature of the suit will not be altered caused to the respondent/defendant. The petitioner has warranting interference of the order of the Court below, is unsustainable and it has to be set aside. property, if the application is and no prejudice will be made out a case The order impugned 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 16.05.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application No.768 of 2024 in O.S.No.150 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) set aside. Consequently, Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.768 of 2024 i allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Kothavalasa is IS As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications are closed. Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. 2. One CC to Sri. G Rama Gopal Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. CKR ASSOCIATES, Advocate 4. Two CD Copies To, [OPUC] MKP sree HIGH COURT DATE0:07/08/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1454 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS