APHC010487942025 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: 2387/2025 Between: 1. BIRLANGI DALINAIDU ALIAS LAXMANARAO, S/O LATE SATYAM, AGED 70 YEARS CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-45 VAKALAVALASA VILLAGE, VANJANGI POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 2. BIRLANGI RAMESH, S/O DALINAIDU, AGED 40 YEARS, BUSINESS. RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-45 VAKALAVALASA VILLAGE, VANJANGI POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 3. BIRLANGI BALAKRISHNA, S/O DALINAIDU, AGED 35 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-45 VAKALAVALASA VILLAGE, VANJANGI POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 4. BIRLANGI CHIRANJEEVARAO, S/O LATE SATYAM, AGED 68 YEARS, CULTIVATION RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-45 VAKALAVALASA VILLAGE, VANJANGI POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 5. BIRLANGI KONDAMMA, W/O CHIRANJEEVARAO, AGED 60 YEARS HOUSEHOLD, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-45 VAKALAVALASA VILLAGE, VANJANGI POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 6. BIRLANGI APPALARAJU, S/O CHIRANJEEVARAO,AGED 35 YEARS, STUDENT, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-45 VAKALAVALASA VILLAGE, VANJANGI POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. PANGA KODANDARAO, S/O EALLAYYA, AGED 60 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESDING AT DOOR NO.13-13-40, DESALLA VEEDHI, NEAR ZP, SRIKAKULAM TOWN AND DISTRICT 2. PEDADA KANTHAMMA, W/O SIMHACHALAM, AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-45 VAKALAVALASA VILLAGE, VANJANGI POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 3. BENDI RAMANAMMA, W/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED 50 YEARS, HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-45 VAKALAVALASA VILLAGE, VANJANGI POST, SRIKAKULAM RURAL MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 4. MAMIDI AMMAYARNMA, W/O SRINIVASARAO, AGED 60 YEARS , HOUSEHOLD DUITES, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.1-4-1/2, GONEPADU VILLAGE, SARUBUJJILI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 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 toPleased to Allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting -a-side the impugned Orders dated. 20.08.2025 passed in lA.No. 516 of 2025 in O.S.No. 429 of 2015 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 stay all further proceedings in OS.No.429/2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Srikakulam pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Defendants 1 to 6 in the suit filed the above revision against the order, dated 20.08.2025, in I.A.No.516 of 2025 in O.S.No.429 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. Page 3 of 7 2. The parties shall be referred to as per their array in suit O.S.No.429 of 2015. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.429 of 2015 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the property and for consequential injunction. 4. In the plaint, it was contended, inter alia, that defendant No.9 purchased the plaint schedule property from B. Narayanamma, mother of defendants 1, 4, 7 and 8 under a registered sale deed, dated 31.03.2003. Later, defendant No.9 approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the suit schedule property. The plaintiff purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 08.08.2012, and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of purchase. While so, defendants 1 to 8 entered into the plaint schedule property by removing the fencing and cleaned the same, with the support of the husband of defendant No.9. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration, recovery of possession of the property and consequential permanent injunction. 5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement. It was contended, inter alia, that originally the plaint schedule property belonged to Pedada Appalasuri, maternal grandfather of defendants 1 to 4, and he executed a registered Will dated 28.05.1990 in favour of the defendants 1 to 4. When defendants 7, 8 and Narayanamma tried to interfere with the possession of defendants 1 and 4 over the plaint schedule property, they filed O.S.No.236 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property and other items and the said suit was decreed. No appeal was preferred against the said decree. Pending the suit O.S.No.236 of 2003, Narayanamma sold the plaint schedule property to defendant No.9 without any right or title and defendant No.9, in turn, sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff without any right or title. Thus, the plaintiff does not get any right or title over the said property, and the plaintiff was never in possession of the same. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. The trial in the suit was completed, and the suit is coming up for arguments. 7. At that juncture, plaintiff filed I.A.No.515 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend para No.4 of the plaint as well as cause of action at para ‘IV’, by incorporating ‘on dt. 27.11.2015’, after the words “recently” and “subsequently” respectively. 8. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that after the defendants’ trespassing into the plaint schedule property on 27.11.2015, the plaintiff gave a Police report at the Rural Police station, Srikakulam and in turn, the Police gave a receipt, acknowledging the same. The said receipt was marked as Ex.A7. Due to oversight, the date was not mentioned in paras 4 and IV, cause of action. 9. Petitioner No.6/respondent No.6 filed a counter and opposed the application. 10. The trial Court allowed the application on 20.08.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 11. Heard Sri Tarlada Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 was filed at the fag end of the suit, without assigning any reasons. He would also submit that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the due diligence test, and mere marking of Ex.A7 is no ground to order the amendment petition. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, would contend that the plaintiff, in fact, pleaded encroachment by defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 and hence, filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and consequential injunction. In fact, the plaintiff exhibited the receipt issued by the Police acknowledging the complaint lodged by the plaintiff regarding encroachment and the said receipt is marked as Ex.A7. Learned counsel would further submit that the plaintiff will not let in any further evidence since the entire evidence is on record. He would further submit that the plaintiff explained reasons, and the amendment will not change the nature of the suit. 14. The point for consideration is whether the order, dated 20.08.2025, in I.A.No.516 of 2025 in O.S.No.429 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, suffers from any irregularity, warranting the interference of this Court? 15. Before going into the merits of the matter, let the court examine the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC in the light of the precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons1, considered the scope of amendment of the pleadings and summed up as follows: (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 16. In the case at hand, the suit itself was filed for declaration, recovery of possession and consequential injunction. The plaintiff specifically pleaded purchase of the plaint schedule property by his vendors, under a registered sale deed, and thereafter his purchase of the property under a registered sale deed. In para 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff specifically pleaded about the defendants’ encroachment upon the plaint schedule property. Of course, the date was not mentioned. 17. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application discloses that the plaintiff got marked the receipt issued by the Police acting upon the complaint lodged by the plaintiff regarding the encroachment, as Ex.A7. As seen from the record, the suit was filed in November or December 2015, immediately after the encroachment. By inserting the date, neither the nature of the suit nor the cause of action will be changed. In fact, the amendment sought, in the opinion of this Court, is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the case. Apart from that, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 specifically contended that the plaintiff would not lead any further evidence, as the entire evidence is already on record. 18. It is also profitable to refer to the recent judgment of 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. 2 2023 SCC Online (S.C.) 256 19. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the trial Court neither suffers from illegality nor perversity. This Court does not find any merit in the revision and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 26.09.2025 IKN