IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3407 OF 202.? Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Revision Petition is filed being aggrieved by order dated 25- 09-2023 passed in IA.No.56 of 2021 in AS.No.90 of 2018 on the file of the Judge, Family Court - cum - IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool Between: 1. Smt. Kare Salamma (Died) 2. Kare Venkata Ramudu, S/o late Kare Chnna Polaiah H.NO.80/76-B, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool. 3. Smt.Kare Gangamma, W/o late Battula Narayana, age 43 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H.N0.4/191-C, Mamatha Nagar, Kurnool. age 49 years, R/o ...Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellants/Plaintiffs AND 1. Gopatthi Venkata Ramudu, S/o Venkata Reddy Cultivation, R/o Mustapalli Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. Kare Jayamma, W/o Badraiah Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. age 58 years, Occ age 47 years, R/o Mustapalli Village ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 of CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i HigJi^^Wt may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in AS.No.90 of 2018, on the file of the Judge, Family Court - and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, pending disposal of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI B. SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI KARUMANCHII Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI KANAKALA DEVI KUMAR is filed praying that in the in support of the petition, the cum - IV Additional District DHEERAJ REDDY PRASANNA The Court made the following order: APHC010643472023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3407/2023 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Smt.kare Salamma(clied) and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Gopatthi Venkata Ramudu and Others Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.B SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR 2.KARUMANCHI DHEERAJ REDDY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3407 of 2023 ORDER; The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 25.09.2023 in I.A.No.56 of 2021 in A.S.No.90 of 2018 passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, The Petitioners are the Appellants/Plaintiffs. The Petitioners had filed the suit for declaration of title and for cancellation of Sale Deed relating to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property alleged to have been executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 on 30.07.2013 vide document No. 1402/2013 and for consequential permanent injunction. The Defendants filed their written statement and the suit was dismissed on contest vide Judgment and Decree dated 04.06.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Atmakur. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners filed appeal A.S.No.90 of 2018 before the District Appellate Court, Kurnool. 1. 2. filed the Petitioners During pendency of the appeal, I.A.No.56 of 2021 seeking to amend the plaint by adding the relief of delivery of possession in the prayer portion of the plaint. This application was opposed by the Respondents/Defendants on the ground that it would not be permissible to seek for amendment at this stage. The further plea was with regard to Court Fee. The District Appellate Court vide impugned orders dismissed the application. Hence, the Revision. Heard Sri B.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Kanakala Devi Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents. The counsel further contended that as the primary relief in the suit is for declaration and the amendment is only an amendment regarding consequential prayer only. It was contended that there is no amendment in the plaint pleadings. It is his further case that by virtue of the amendment, no 3. 4. 5. further evidence is required and that the evidence on record is sufficient to dispose of the appeal. An affidavit was filed by the petitioner vide USR No.79715 dated 20.11.2024 stating that no further evidence would be required by virtue of the amendment. 6. The counsel for the Respondents contended that due diligence was not exercised by the Petitioners and at the appellate stage it would be impermissible to seek for amendment. 7. This court having heard the respective counsels opines as under; The primary relief sought by the Petitioners in the suit was declaration of title and for cancellation of Sale Deed said to have been executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of the Defendant No.1 pursuant to item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. The Defendants claimed the schedule property through an independent source of tile and claimed independent title to the schedule property. The amendment that is being sought by the Petitioners is only the consequential relief which is dependent on the Petitioners succeeding with regard to their claim for title over the scheduled property. As the amendment being a consequential relief, the same would not change the nature of the suit nor the Respondents can urge any prejudice considering the written statement. The amendment would only enable the Courts to decide the dispute between the parties and the plea that the application was filed belatedly, cannot be a ground to deny amendment. A similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh' at paragraph 6 and the same is extracted below; 8. “6. It is also well settled that even if the amendment prayed for is belated, while considering such belated amendment, the court must bear In favour of doing full and complete justice in the case where the party against whom the amendment is to be allowed, can be compensated by costs or otherwise. (2009) 10 see 626 fSee B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillait) Accordingly, we do not find any reason to hold that only because there i/i/as some delay In filing the application for amendment of the plaint, such prayer for amendment cannot be allowed. ” In view of the above, the order of the District Appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same is set-aside. The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. 10. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Judge, Family Court - cum - IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri. B Suryanarayana, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Karumanchi Dheeraj Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Kanakala Devi Prasanna kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. The Section Officer, V.R. Section High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 6. Three CD Copies To MKP sree HIGH COURT DATED -.28/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.3407 of 2023 1 3 MAR 2025 ^ Current aecuon ^^>PesPATC\^ ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS