APHC010459512024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. DESU VINAY KUMAR, DESU VINAY KUMAR, S/O. YEDUKONDALU 2ND LINE, GUNTURUVARITHOTA, GUNTUR. 1. MADDULA SYAM SUNDAR, S/O. MADULAVENKATA KRISHNA RAO,R/O. 06-14-48, 14/2 ARANDALPET, GUNTUR. 2. MADDULASAMPATH, 06- 14-48, 14/2, ARUNDLEPT, GUNT 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 tomay be pleased to allow the CRP and SET decree passed in I.A. No. 410/2023 in O.S. No. 614 of 2017 on the Court of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge Guntur and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO KURAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2595 OF 2024 DESU VINAY KUMAR, DESU VINAY KUMAR, S/O. YEDUKONDALU 2ND LINE, GUNTURUVARITHOTA, GUNTUR. ...PETITIONER AND MADDULA SYAM SUNDAR, S/O. MADULAVENKATA KRISHNA 48, 14/2 ARANDALPET, GUNTUR. MADDULASAMPATH, S/O. MADDULAVENKATA KRISHNA RAO, R/O. 48, 14/2, ARUNDLEPT, GUNT ...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 be pleased to allow the CRP and SET-ASIDE the Order and decree passed in I.A. No. 410/2023 in O.S. No. 614 of 2017 on the Court of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge Guntur and pass such 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRINIVASA RAO KURAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER DESU VINAY KUMAR, DESU VINAY KUMAR, S/O. YEDUKONDALU ...PETITIONER MADDULA SYAM SUNDAR, S/O. MADULAVENKATA KRISHNA S/O. MADDULAVENKATA KRISHNA RAO, R/O. ...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 ASIDE the Order and decree passed in I.A. No. 410/2023 in O.S. No. 614 of 2017 on the Court of that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 VS, J C.R.P.No.2595 of 2024 The Court made the following ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2023 in I.A.No.410 of 2023 in O.S.No.614 of 2017 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, allowing the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint as per the proposed amendment, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.614 of 2017. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred herein as they are arrayed before the Court below. 4. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.614 of 2017 for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of delivery of vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff and also for recovery of Rs.1,12,820/- towards balance of damages for use and occupation from 06.08.2017 to 05.10.2017 with future damages for use and occupation at Rs.1,46,410/-. The plaintiffs filed a petition I.A.No.410 of 2023 in O.S.No.614 of 2017 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint by adding certain paragraphs as sought for in the petition, on the ground that the 2nd plaintiff, who is the elder brother of the 1st plaintiff, gifted his share of schedule property to the 1st plaintiff under a registered Gift deed dated 25.05.2018 bearing document No.4761 of 2018. Since then, the 1st plaintiff became absolute owner of the 3 VS, J C.R.P.No.2595 of 2024 entire suit schedule property and thereby, he sought for amendment of plaint. The Court below, after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and keeping in view the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the precedents laid down thereto, allowed the petition, on payment of nominal costs, permitting the petitioners to amend the plaint as per the proposed amendment. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the proposed amendment changes the entire pleadings of the plaint and new cause of action would arise, which cannot be allowed. He also submits that the alleged gift deed was executed in the year 2018, and after lapse of nearly 5 years, the plaintiff filed the present petition seeking proposed amendment, which is barred by limitation, and hence, the order under revision is not sustainable. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Court below is justified in ordering the amendment of the plaint in view of the circumstances stated therein. He further submits that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit and it is only adding of certain paragraphs in the plaint as sought for. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 VS, J C.R.P.No.2595 of 2024 8. Before dealing with the issue herein, it would be appropriate to refer the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., which reads as under: 17. Amendment of pleadings—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 9. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it governs the amendment of pleadings, allowing a party to alter or amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided it is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. Amendments can be liberally allowed but must not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposing party, or circumvent the law of limitation. If the amendment is sought after commencement of the trial, the party seeking the amendment must demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made earlier despite due diligence. The proviso under this Rule further clarifies that after the trial has commenced, an application for amendment shall not be allowed, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso under this Rule restricts the power of the court to allow amendments of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. 5 VS, J C.R.P.No.2595 of 2024 10. Keeping the above principle in mind, it has to be looked into whether the Court below had followed the principles within the parameters of Order VI Rule 17 CPC in allowing the petition. Having gone through the order impugned, it is the case of the plaintiffs/respondents herein, that the 2nd plaintiff gifted his share of the property to the 1st plaintiff under a registered gift deed dated 25.05.2018 and since then the 1st plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire plaint schedule property and as such, he filed the present petition seeking to make necessary amendments in the plaint as per the proposed amendment. Further, it is the case of the defendant/revision petitioner that the proposed amendment would change the entire pleadings of the plaint by introducing a new cause of action. 11. As seen from the material on record, it appears that the proposed paragraphs sought to be added would not change the scope and nature of the suit and it is only incorporation of certain paragraphs in view of execution of the gift deed by 2nd plaintiff in favour of 1st plaintiff. As observed by the Court below, there was no provision in Schedule-I of the Limitation Act, which deals with the period of limitation for amendment of pleadings. However, as stated, there is a rider provided under Order VI Rule 17, which states that generally after commencement of trial, amendments shall not be allowed to be ordered. However, in the present case, the Court below did not state about the commencement of trial. However, the Court below, after quoting certain precedents in respect of amendment of pleadings, is justified in ordering 6 VS, J C.R.P.No.2595 of 2024 amendment of pleadings so as to adjudicate the suit comprehensively and the findings given by the Court below in allowing the amendment are just, reasonable and well founded and the same do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in exercise of restricted revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence, the present Civil Revision Petition lacks any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 21.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.410 of 2023 in O.S.No.614 of 2017 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 26.09.2025 TJN 7 VS, J C.R.P.No.2595 of 2024 624 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2595 OF 2024 Date: 26.09.2025 TJN