APHC010016972023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 445/2023 Between: 1. M MAHANTHAYYA SWAMY, S/O. LATE BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 9-103, KOSIGI VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. M. JAGADEESH,, S/O. LATE BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 9-103, KOSIGI VILLAGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. ELLURU MANJUNATH, S/O. ELLURI SIRINIVASULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.5/228,MADISON AVE APT. B5, OKEMOS, MI-48864, USA, REP. BY GPA HOLDER BY HIS FATHER ELLURU SRINIVASULU, 5/0. ADINARAYANA SHETTY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, H.NO. 9/146, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOSIGI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. ELLURU SRINIVASULU, S/O. ADINARAYANA SHETTY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, H.NO. 9/146, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOSIGI, KURNOOL DISTRICT 3. M SURYANARAYANA, S/O. ERANNA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NELAKOSIGI VILLAGE, VANDAGALLU POST, KOSIGI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. (3RD RESPONDENT IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS REVISION PETITION AS ABATED) ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 set aside the Order and decree dated 13.09.2022 in I.A.No. 263 of 2022 in O.S.No. 185 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant Interim Stay of all of further proceedings in O.S.No. 185 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District, pending disposal of above Revision and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B SARVOTHAM REDDY The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Assailing the order passed in I.A.No.263 of 2022 in O.S.No.185 of 2015 by the Principal Judicial Civil Judge, Adoni, dated 13.09.2022, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. The petitioners herein are defendant Nos.1 and 2, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs and respondent No.3 is the co-defendant No.3 in the suit. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present civil revision petition are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the suit in O.S.No.185 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.263 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC praying the Court to permit them to amend plaint for declaration of title to the suit schedule property. The said interlocutory application has been opposed by the defendants by filing counter on the ground that earlier I.A.No.1156 of 2015 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction was dismissed on merits on 04.04.2019 and the present application has been filed at a belated stage when the suit is coming up for further evidence, which is not maintainable. It is further contended that if the amendment petition is allowed, the nature of the entire suit will be changed and thereby the defendant will suffer great hardship and loss. It is further contended that the defendants filed their written statement in the year 2015 but the plaintiffs failed to take steps before commencement of trial and after seven years from the date of filing of the suit, the petitioners filed the said amendment application at a belated stage, which is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the interlocutory application. After hearing the parties and 4 considering the material available on record, the Court below allowed the said application. Assailing the same, the present civil revision petition came to be filed. 4. Heard Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sazid, learned counsel representing Sri B.Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the counter filed before the Court below and the grounds of revision, submitted that despite raising a cloud over the title by filing written statement, the plaintiffs did not choose to take steps to amend the relief at the beginning before commencement of trial. Only after plaintiff side evidence let in, the present application has been filed at a belated stage. He further contended that the relief now sought is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which stipulates three years when the right to sue first accrues. In the present case, the petitioners filed their written statement in the month of December, 2015 denying the right and title of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Within three years from the said date, the plaintiffs ought to have sought declaratory relief. In the present case, P.W.1/2nd respondent was examined in chief and was cross examined on 14.03.2019, wherein his right and title were denied; however, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the present application seeking amendment of plaint on 18.07.2022, hence barred by limitation. The Court below, without looking into these aspects and without seeing the purport of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in a right perspective, allowed the application. If the same is allowed, the rights of the petitioners/defendants will be defeated. As such, prayed to allow the civil revision petition. 5 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, submitted that the order impugned is justifiable, wherein the Court below has taken due note of all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the delay and limitation aspects, and as such, warrants no interference. In support of his contention, he relied on the Judgment of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Another1, and accordingly prayed to dismiss the civil revision petition. 7. Perused the material available on record and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the suit vide in O.S.No.185 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, initially for permanent injunction. In the said suit, admittedly after commencement of trial, P.W.1 was examined and cross-examined, the present interlocutory application vide in I.A.No.263 of 2022 came to be filed on 18.07.2022 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint to include the relief of declaration of title. The said application has been opposed by the defendants by filing counter on two grounds 1) delay and 2) that the relief sought is barred by limitation. As the defendants have categorically denied right and title to the suit schedule property, the Court below allowed the said application. 9. In this regard, this Court has to consider whether the Court below has rightly allowed the application by taking into consideration the grounds of delay and limitation. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. 1 (2002) 7 SCC 559 6 Ltd. & Anr.2, the Hon’ble Apex Court has summed up with the principles with regard to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which reads as follows:- (i) 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. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if- (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are- (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up on the plaint. 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 7 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that delay in filing an amendment application alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer and further held that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment can be allowed. 11. In Parigonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Pail and Others3, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 12. Amendments should be refused only when the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, and the amendment would cause an injury which could not be compensated in costs. As compared to the facts on hand, the defendants contention is that a categorical stand has been taken in the written statement disputing the title of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property, which was filed in the year 2015. The cause of action for seeking relief of declaration is three years and it starts from the date of filing of the written statement; however, the said amendment has been sought beyond the period of limitation and that too belated stage after commencement of trial. With regard to limitation aspect is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar (supra), at paragraph-11 held as follows::- “11. In the present case the amendment is being sought for almost 11 years after the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration of title and recovery 3 1957 SC 363 8 of possession being sought for in the pending suit. The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. However, the defendant is right in submitting that if he has already perfected his title by way of adverse possession then the right so accrued should not be allowed to be defeated by permitting an amendment and seeking a new relief which would relate back to the date of the suit and thereby depriving the defendant of the advantage accrued to him by lapse of time, by excluding a period of about 11 years in calculating the period of prescriptive title claimed to have been earned by the defendant. The interest of the defendant can be protected by directing that so far as the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession, now sought for, are concerned the prayer in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment has been filed.” 13. As could seen from the said Judgment, the merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment should not be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically taken into consideration the defence taken by the defendants therein and held that if the defendants have already perfected their title by way of adverse possession, then the right so accrued should not be allowed to be defeated by permitting an amendment seeking a new relief which would relate back to the date of suit, thereby depriving the defendant of the advantage accrued by lapse of time by excluding a period of 11 years in calculating the period of prescriptive title claimed to have been earned by them. The interest of the defendants can be protected by directing that, insofar as the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession now sought for is concerned, the prayer in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment has been filed. 9 14. If the said observation is taken into consideration with the facts of the present case, the interest of the defendants can also be protected. As stated supra, delay cannot be a ground to reject the amendment application. Further, the limitation aspect can also be looked into by the Court below during the course of trial. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no grounds are made out warranting interference of this Court and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is needless to observe that the trial Court shall frame an issue with regard to limitation and decide the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 17th March, 2026 JLV 10 312 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:445/2023 Date: 17th March, 2026 JLV