^APHCOI0328492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI B FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1612 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 06-05-2025, in I.A. No. 196 of 2025 in O S. No. 407 of 2014.on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil, Judge, (Senior Division) Kurnool.Kurnool District. Between: 1. P Rajasekhar, S/o. P. Abraham, Aged about 38 years, Occ Cultivation R/o. H.No. 39/252, Vaddegeri, Kurnool District, A.P. - 518001 ...PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND 1. KATEPOGU VENKATASWAMY, (Died as per LRs) 2. K Mallamma, W/o. Venkataswamy, Aged about 70 years, Occ Housewife R/o. H.No. 4-4,Padidempadu Village, Kurnool Mandal 3. K Surendra, S/o. Venkataswamy, Aged about 55 R/o. H.No. 4-5, Padidempadu Village, Kurnool Mandal and and District, A.P. years, Occ Cultivation District, A.P. / 4. K Ravindra Kumar, Private Employee, Kurnool Mandal and District, A.P. , S/o. Venkataswamy, Aged about 70 years, Occ. R/o. H.No. 2-273, Anjaneya Nagar, Venkayapalle, 5. K Sampath Kumar, S/o. Venkataswamy, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o. H.No. 4-6, Padidempadu Village District, A.P. Kurnool Mandal and 6. B Leelavathamma, W/o. B. Sanjeeva Raju, Aged about 48 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No. 4-264, Padidempadu Village, Kurnool Mandal and District, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 7. P Rajamma, W/o. Abraham, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. H.No. 39/252,Vaddegeri, Kurnool District, A.P. - 518001. 8. P Pushpalatha, W/o. Anand, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Yerradoddi Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District, A.P. 9. P Suvarnalatha, , W/o. Ramesh, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. Dudyala Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District, A.P. 10. P Swaroopa Rani, D/o. Abraham, Aged about 29 years,Occ. Housewife R/o. H.No. 39/252, Vaddegeri, Kurnool District, A.P. - 518001. 11. A Samson Babu, S/o. Late Marthamma, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o. Vaddegeri, Kurnool District, A.P. - 518001. 12. A Wilson Babu, S/o. Late Marthamma Cultivation, R/o. Vaddegeri, Kurnool District, A.P. - 518001. 13. A Rajesh Babu, S/o. Late Marthamma Cultivation, R/o. Vaddegeri, Kurnool District, A.P. - 518001. 14. A Sujatha, D/o. Late Marthamma, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. Padidampadu Village, Kurnool Mandal and District, A.P. Aged about 42 years, Occ. Aged about 42 years,Occ. % 15. A Ravikantha, D/o. Late Marthamma Aged about 46 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Budhawarpeta Village, Kurnool Mandal and District, A.R 16. A Suvarna Jyothi, D/o. Late Marthamma, Aged about 40 years,Occ. Housewife, R/o. B.Camp Road, Kurnool City, Kurnool District, A.P. - 518002. Respondents/P ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS 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. 407 of 2014 on the file of Honble Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. Counsel for the Petitioner KUMAR : SRI BHUVANAGIRI SUBRAMANYA Counsel for the Respondents : SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondents : The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010328492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the First day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1612 of 2025 Between: P. Rajasekhar ...Petitioner and Katepogu Venkataswamy and others Counsel for the petitioner: I.Bhuvanagiri Subramanya Kumar Counsel for the respondents: I.Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava ...Respondents The Court made the following: I 2 C.R.P.No.1612 of 2025 ^4. ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.05.2025 dismissing petition in I.A.No.196 of 2025 in O.S.No.407 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C r/w Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice to permit them to amend the plaint as follows; Add after para No.5 in the plaint:- It is further submitted that after verification of document, I came to know that the document bearing No. 18735 / 2024 dt. 20.02.2024 has been executed by the defendant's family members which is not binding on me as the said document declared to knock away our share and as such the above said document be treated as null and void. 5-a. Add-As relief of prayer in the plaint:- (ia) Grant cancellation of further documents which was held after filing the above suit is null and void and not binding to the plaintiffs,” 02. The plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.708 of 2001, dated 29.01.2001 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. Pending the suit, the sole defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as the defendants No.2 to 6. 03. Almost at the end of the trial, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.196 of 2025 seeking amendment of the plaint on the ground that they had recently come to know about the execution of the document bearing No. 18735 3 C.R.P.No.1612 of 2025 of 2024, dated 20.02.2024 executed among the family members of the defendants and the said document is not binding on the plaintiffs. As such, the proposed amendments are required. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the respondent No.5 adopted by the respondents No.2 to 4 and 6. It was stated in the counter that the respondents who are absolute owners of the suit schedule property rightfully exercised their legal rights over the suit schedule property by partitioning the same, and that the said document is always subject to the result of the suit as it was executed during the pendency of the suit. It was also stated that the proposed amendments are incomplete and moreover there is no reference to Court fee payable on the new relief sought. 04. After hearing the both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition mainly observing that there is no consistency in the proposed amendments which mentioned above since the prayer doesn’t contain the document number which is sought to be declared null and void and the plaintiffs cannot seek such relief, it is further observed by the trial Court that since the proposed amendment for adding prayer is not consequential amendments, the petitioners, without paying Court fee for the said relief are not entitled to seek such amendments. 05. 06. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the trial Court dismissed the petition only on the ground of not specifically mentioning the document number in the prayer, whereas there is a reference of the document sought to be cancelled in the proposed amendment paragraph No.5-a. He further submitted that if the amendment is allowed, the plaintiffs are ready to pay the necessary Court fee and therefore, the Court can direct the additional Court fee to 07. 4 C.R.P.No.1612 of 2025 be paid instead of dismissing the petition. He further submitted that the respondents admitted execution of document, but contended that since the document was executed pending the suit, they are bound by the result of the suit, and so the contention of the petitioners is correct. 08. A perusal of the proposed amendment by addition of paragraph No.5-a indicates that it is not grammatically correct. Therefore, while permitting the amendment to that effect, suitable changes are allowed. Though the transaction pendent life is the subject of the outcome of the suit, since it is a registered transaction, it is better to seek relief against the said document as well to avoid future complications. Merely because there is some lapse in the proposed plea, the whole relief need not be refused. Court has jurisdiction to direct necessary amendment, if proposed amendment is inadequate, incomplete or otherwise. Therefore, if the proposed amendment in relation to the prayer in the plaint is vague or general, the Court can direct the petitioners to carry out appropriate amendments incorporating the details of the document which was already referred in the proposed amendment to the plaint by insertion of para 5-a. 09. If Court fee is necessary to be paid in relation to the proposed change in the prayer of the plaint, appropriate corresponding amendment can also directed to be incorporated and further direction can be given to pay the necessary Court fee. Therefore, for the above reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 06.05.2025 in I.A.No.196 of 2025 in O.S.No.407 of 2014 on the file of the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool and the said I.A.No.196 of 2025 is allowed permitting the petitioner to carry out the following amendments: 11. 5 C.R.P.No.1612 of 2025 To add after paragraph No.5 in the plaint as follows;- ‘5-a It is further submitted that after verification of the document, the plaintiffs came to know that the document bearing No. 18735 of 2024 dated 20.02.2024 had been executed among the defendant’s family members and it is not binding on the plaintiffs as the said document was executed to knock away the share of the plaintiffs and as such the said document shall be treated as null and void, ii. The petitioners shall also make necessary amendments to the paragraph No.6 relating to cause of action corresponding to paragraph No.5-a. iii.To add paragraph No.l-a after paragraph No.1 as follows; “1-a. Cancel document bearing No. 18735 of 2024 dated 20.02.2024 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.” iv.The trial Court is directed to check whether necessary Court fee is required in relation to the amended prayer and direct the plaintiffs to pay the same if required within the time fixed and also to make corresponding amendment in the plaint at appropriate place. i. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District. / 2. OneCCto Sri. Bhuvanagiri Subramanya Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies TAC :* • ‘ ;r- c; 1,) % I- I HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1612 OF 2025 17 SEP 2025 1] ^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE CRP