::1:: APHC010434322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2096/2025 Between: 1. M/S KUMAR GRANITES, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SIDDA RAGHAVA RAO S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.8-24, DHENUVA KONDAVARI STREET, LAWYERPET EXTENSION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M/S BVL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, BUDAWADA VILLAGE, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, B. JAYANTHI BABU, S/O. LATE VENKAIAH. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, HYDERABAD. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ONGOLE. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, ONGOLE. ::2:: 5. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, CHIMAKURTHY. 6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RDO OFFICE, ONGOLE. 7. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASM DISTRICT, ONGOLE. ...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 topresent this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the order dated 27.06.2025 in I.A. No. 357 of 2024 in O.S.No.330 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P KAMLAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM ::3:: Reserved on : 19.11.2025 Pronounced on : 31.12.2025 Uploaded on : 02.01.2026 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.2096 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: The present petitioner and respondent No.1 herein are defendant No.7 and plaintiff in the suit respectively. 2. For the convenience of the Court, the parties are referred herein as they referred in the revision petition. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2025 in I.A.No.357/2024 in O.S.No.330 of 2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff wherein the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff to amend the plaint schedule as per the memo of the amendment annexed to the petition was allowed. 4. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.330 of 2015 for declaration of rights of the ::4:: respondent No.1/plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent No.1/plaintiff’s plaint schedule property. 5. While so, the respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a petition in I.A.No.357/2024 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC claiming that at the plaint schedule the boundaries for the total land owned in survey number were shown mistakenly instead of part of the land which was encroached or illegally occupied land boundaries for Ac.0.84 cents. In fact, the boundaries mentioned at the schedule of plaint belongs to the entire land of Ac.19.56 cents instead of plaint schedule land of Ac.0.84 cents. The said I.A.No.357/2024 was allowed permitting the respondent No.1/plaintiff to amend the plaint schedule as per the memo for amendment of the suit schedule land annexed to the petition. Hence the present CRP by the petitioner/defendant No.7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the Court below erred in allowing the amendment petition filed by the 1st respondent herein only on the ground that in allowing the petition no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner herein, ::5:: without taking into consideration that the amendment petition is not maintainable as long as no amendment was sought to change the boundaries to the sale deed dated 24.01.2007 and dated 06.04.1999 as the suit is based only on the said sale deeds. He further submits that the court below failed to taken into consideration the submission of the petitioner/defendant that by amending the boundaries, indirectly granting time to the plaintiff to seek the claim which was otherwise barred by time. He further contended that the survey Nos.98/4B and Sy.No.98/5B does not exist as per the sale deed dated 24.01.2007 which is the basis for claim of the respondent No.1 herein and the question of amending the boundaries to the contrary to the sale deed dated 24.01.2007 does not arise and allowing the same is beyond the suit claim and certainly change the nature of the suit initially filed. He thus prayed to allow the present Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in Gurdial Singh and others vs. Raj Kumar Aneja and others1 which reads as under: “13. Before parting we feel inclined to make certain observations about the loose practice prevalent in the subordinate courts in entertaining and dealing with applications for amendment of pleadings.” 1 (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 445 ::6:: 7. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 argued that all amemdnets are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and others 2 which reads thus: “71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: 71.1.Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. 71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. 71.3 The prayer for amendment is to be allowed 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and 71.3.2 To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission 2 (2022) 16 Supreme Court Cases 1 ::7:: made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4 A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 71.4.1 By the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, 72. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that we should not disturb the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the amendment application filed at the instance of the plaintiffs.” 6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and after perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole while allowing I.A.No.357/2024 has rightly observed that the amendment petition sought would not change the nature of the suit and further the trial in the suit is not yet commenced. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has been claiming that mistakenly they got mentioned the boundaries for the entire extent in the suit at survey number instead of the suit schedule property. Hence, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ongole rightly held that the respondent No.1/plaintiff can be permitted to amend the suit to mention only the boundaries for ::8:: the part of the land being claimed as suit schedule property. Therefore, the grounds pleaded in Civil Revision Petition are lacks merits. Hence, the reasons shown by the trial Court to allow the application i.e., I.A.No.357/2024 in O.S.No.330 of 2015 do not suffer any illegality or irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 31.12.2025 krk ::9:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.2096 of 2025 DT: 31.12.2025 krk