APHC010378632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE 23 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2030 OF 2026 Between: 1. Bavisetti Venkatappa Rao, Coolie work, residing at Pydibheemavaram village, Ranastalam mandal, Srikakulam District- 532409 1. Bavisetti Sanjeevi Rao, S/o. Late Satyam, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, residing at Old Kunkam village,Laveru mandal, Srikakulam District 2. Bavisetti Narayanappa Rao, S/o. Late Satyam, aged about 52 years, Cultivation,residing at Pydibheemavaram village, Ranastalam mandal, Srikakulam District- 532409 3. Chintapalli Chinna Rao, S/o. La Cultivation,residing at Pydibheemavaram village, Ranastalammandal,Srikakulam District Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds fil pleased to the above-named petitioner is aggrieved by the order in I.A. No.219/2026 in O.S.No.252/2025, dated 09.04.2026, passed by the Principal IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2030 OF 2026 1. Bavisetti Venkatappa Rao, S/o. Late Narayana Rao, aged about 55 years, Coolie work, residing at Pydibheemavaram village, Ranastalam mandal, 532409 AND 1. Bavisetti Sanjeevi Rao, S/o. Late Satyam, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, unkam village,Laveru mandal, Srikakulam District 2. Bavisetti Narayanappa Rao, S/o. Late Satyam, aged about 52 years, Cultivation,residing at Pydibheemavaram village, Ranastalam mandal, 532409 3. Chintapalli Chinna Rao, S/o. Late Gurayya,aged about 57 years, Cultivation,residing at Pydibheemavaram village, Ranastalammandal,Srikakulam District-532409 ...Respondents 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 named petitioner is aggrieved by the order in I.A. No.219/2026 in O.S.No.252/2025, dated 09.04.2026, passed by the Principal IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2030 OF 2026 S/o. Late Narayana Rao, aged about 55 years, Coolie work, residing at Pydibheemavaram village, Ranastalam mandal, ...Petitioner 1. Bavisetti Sanjeevi Rao, S/o. Late Satyam, aged about 55 years, Cultivation, unkam village,Laveru mandal, Srikakulam District- 532407 2. Bavisetti Narayanappa Rao, S/o. Late Satyam, aged about 52 years, Cultivation,residing at Pydibheemavaram village, Ranastalam mandal, te Gurayya,aged about 57 years, Cultivation,residing at Pydibheemavaram village, ...Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the ed herein, the High Court may be named petitioner is aggrieved by the order in I.A. No.219/2026 in O.S.No.252/2025, dated 09.04.2026, passed by the Principal 2 Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam and the petitioner beg to present the CRP among other IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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.252/2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition, and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: KRISHNA RAO PARITALA Counsel for the Respondents: S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam, in I.A. No.219 of 2026 in O.S. No.252 of 2025, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts that led to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows: The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.252 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, which was filed for permanent injunction. After the defendants filed their written statements, the petitioner filed I.A. No.219 of 2026 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint schedule with regard to the survey number, which was mentioned as ‘105-10’ instead of ‘105-3’. The said application was opposed by the defendants by filing a counter, denying the allegations and contending that the proposed amendment was created for the purpose of the case. The trial Court, after hearing both parties, dismissed the said application, contending that the petitioner had failed to file any document in support of his contention. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri B. Venkatapparao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the writ affidavit, contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate the settled legal position that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed, particularly when the amendment is sought before the commencement of trial. The trial Court, having explicitly recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that the suit is for permanent injunction and that the trial has not yet commenced, erred in not permitting the amendment. He further submitted that the trial Court dismissed the application solely on the ground that the fair adangal copy relied upon by the petitioner was not filed along with the interlocutory application, without appreciating that the correctness of the survey number and the proof thereof are matters to be established through evidence during the course of the trial. He further submitted that the correction of the survey number does not take away any legal defence available to the defendants, nor does it introduce any time- barred claim. He further submitted that the mere correction of the survey number, sought to be supported by a revenue record, does not alter the identity of the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial Court rightly dismissed the interlocutory application on the ground that the petitioner had failed to file any document in support of his contention and that no grounds had been made out warranting interference by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 5 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing I.A. No.219 of 2026 filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint schedule with regard to the survey number. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner seeks correction of the survey number mentioned in the plaint schedule from ‘105- 10’ to ‘105-3’. The specific case of the petitioner is that the survey number was wrongly mentioned in the plaint and that the proposed amendment is sought only to rectify the said mistake. It is also not in dispute that the trial has not yet commenced. 9. The power to permit amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is intended to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the real controversy between the parties. Though the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC places a restriction on amendments sought after commencement of trial, in the present case, admittedly, the trial has not commenced. Therefore, the said restriction has no application at this stage. Whether the petitioner is ultimately able to establish that Survey No.105-3 is the correct survey number and whether the suit schedule property corresponds to the said survey number are 6 matters which can appropriately be considered on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties during the trial. 10. The trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not filed the document in support of the proposed correction. In the considered view of this Court, at the stage of considering an application for amendment, the Court is not required to adjudicate upon the correctness or otherwise of the proposed amendment or to conclusively determine the evidentiary value of the document relied upon by the party. The correctness of the claim and the evidentiary basis for the same can be tested during the trial. Further, the proposed amendment does not appear to introduce a new cause of action or change the nature and character of the suit. The suit continues to be one for permanent injunction in respect of the same plaint schedule property. The defendants would also have an opportunity to file an additional written statement, if necessary, and to contest the claim of the petitioner on merits. Thus, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants which cannot be adequately addressed in the course of the trial. 11. It is also well settled that amendments which are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties should ordinarily to be allowed, particularly when the application is filed before the commencement of trial. At the same time, allowing the amendment does not amount to accepting the correctness of the amended pleading. The petitioner is still required to establish, by acceptable evidence, the identity of the suit schedule property and the correctness of the survey number pleaded by him. 7 12. In the present case, the proposed amendment appears to be in the nature of correction/clarification of the survey number in the plaint schedule. The trial Court, instead of permitting the petitioner to establish the correctness of the proposed amendment during trial, rejected the application for non- production of the supporting document at the interlocutory stage. Such an approach, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not sustainable. Hence, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam, in I.A. No.219 of 2026 in O.S. No.252 of 2025 is set aside. The respondents/defendants shall be given an opportunity to file their additional written statement, if any, and contest the amended pleadings in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 23.09.2026 MP 8 162 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2030 of 2026 Dated 23.09.2026 MP