APHC010049222020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 338/2020 Between: 1.K RAMANJANEYULU, S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.24-4-1024/D, RTC COLONY, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2.K. SREENIVASULU,, S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-7-1/A, ABADPETA, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.A MANOHAR NAIK, S/O. ADUGLIA NAIK, EMPLOYEE IN MPDO OFFICE, R/O, D.NO.26-4-1428, RTC COLONY, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 2.ADUGULIA NAIK, S/O. ADUHANJI NAIK, R/O. D.NO. 26-4-1428, RTC COLONY, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...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 toMemorandum of grounds before this Hon'ble Court aggrieved order and Decree passed in I.A.No.64/2018 in 0.S.No.138 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, dated 30-10-2019 IA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 OS.No. 138 of 2013 on the file of the court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur pending the CRP before this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.M VENKATA RAMANA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.338 OF 2020 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2019 passed in IA.No.64 of 2018 in OS.No.138 of 2013 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the interlocutory application is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint by incorporating the relief of declaration and delivery of possession. The petitioners have filed the interlocutory application on the primary on the ground that while the 1st petitioner was in judicial custody, the defendants had encroached an extent of eight yards from East to West and 16 yards from North to South into the suit schedule property. As such, the petitioners intended to seek possession of the extent of land which is allegedly encroached by the respondents and also seeks a direction to that effect. It is submitted that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the interlocutory application on the sole ground that the respondents in their written statement had categorically stated that a house was constructed even as on the date of filing of the suit in the suit schedule property and that the petitioners were aware of same and kept quiet for nearly four years without taking any steps for amendment of the plaint and that the petitioners also failed to disclose the details of the period during which the 1st petitioner is said to be in judicial custody. The learned Judge has also held that the attempt of the 3 petitioners in seeking amendment is with intent to defeat the defence of the respondents therein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents had filed OS.No.33 of 2012 and refers to the suit schedule property as referred in OS.No.138 of 2013 which is filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioners. It is submitted that the suit schedule property would refer to RS.No.410-1 and 410-3. It is also submitted that the extent of the schedule property is Ac.4.14 cents in RS.No.410-1 and Ac.3.74 cents in RS.No.410-3. It is also submitted that the IA.No.153 of 2012 was filed by the 1st respondent in OS.No.33 of 2012 seeking injunction and the same was dismissed. It is submitted that in order to somehow encroach in to the petitioners property, the 1st respondent has filed a false complaint alleging offence under Sections 147, 148 of IPC read with Section 3, 5 and 7 of S.C. and S.T. Atrocity Act vide Crime No.157 of 2013 of I Town Police Station, Hindupur. It is also submitted that the respondents have taken advantage of the criminal case filed against the petitioners and in the absence of the petitioners, the respondents have trespassed into the suit schedule property in RS.No.406-2 in an extent of eight yards East to West and 16 yards North to South from and out of Ac.0.45 cents and constructed a residential house. It is also submitted that the learned Judge had granted statusquo order in IA.No.481 of 2013 in OS.No.138 of 2013. It is also submitted that the respondents have violated the statusquo order 4 and trespassed into the petitioners’ property. It is submitted that the petitioners are the bonafide purchasers of the property and intend to amend the prayer and seek the appropriate relief on account of the changed circumstances which have transpired after filing of the suit. 4. It is also submitted that the trial is yet to commence in the matter and that the encroachment of the respondents into the petitioners’ property was a subsequent event and no amount of due diligence could have enabled the petitioners in filing the appropriate application seeking amendment to the pleadings and prayer 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have constructed a house way back in the year 2011 after obtaining permission from the competent authority. It is also submitted that the petitioners were aware that the suit schedule property was already under occupation by the respondents and the respondents had also filed OS.No.33 of 2012, wherein the petitioners are arrayed as defendants. In such an event the petitioners have hopelessly failed to establish the due diligence on their part was exercised in a rational manner before filing the application seeking amendment of the pleadings and prayer. It is also submitted that the petitioners cannot be permitted to amend the prayer after commencement of the trial and that the plaintiffs have already submitted the chief examination affidavit before the Court and as such the statutory bar in permitting the amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is categorically clear. It is 5 also submitted that the prejudice shall be caused to the respondents in the event the petitioners are permitted to amend the pleadings and prayer. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Basavaraj Vs. Indira and others1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if prejudice is caused to one of the party on account of the amendment, the right accrued to a party cannot be taken away on account of delay in filing the petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 7. On the facts of the case, the suit schedule property of OS.No.138 of 2013 would refer to land in RS.No.406-2. The suit schedule property in OS.No.33 of 2012 filed by the 1st respondent would refer to land in RS.Nos.410-1, 410-3. Evidently, the schedule property in OS.No.138 of 2013 and OS.No.33 of 2012 are distinct and different. 8. Insofar as, the claim of the petitioners is concerned that the petitioners were incapacitated from taking appropriate steps seeking amendment of the pleadings and prayer. The petitioners refer to the registration of Crime No.157 of 2013 and the petitioners were unable to look after the suit schedule property and during the said interregnum period, the respondents are said to have trespassed into the suit schedule property in RS.No.406-2. These aspects would have to be gone into by the learned trial Judge by giving ample and fair opportunity to either party. 1 2024 (3) ALD 56 (SC) 6 9. The parties before the trial Court would have to establish their claim by identifying the suit schedule property by taking appropriate steps. Insofar as considering the amendment of pleadings and prayer is concerned, the registration of Crime No.157 of 2013 has transpired subsequently after filing of the suit. The petitioners have also stated in the affidavit filed in IA.No.64 of 2018 that he was remanded to judicial custody on 27.11.2013. Though, it is not stated as to how long the 1st petitioner was underwent judicial custody and as to when he was released on bail. 10. The amendment of pleadings in a suit filed for injunction can be permitted after the events which occur resulted in the plaintiff depriving of the very title. On the facts of the case, the respondents are said to have encroached into the suit schedule property in RS.No.406-2. However, even as per the suit filed by the respondents against the petitioners in OS.No.33 of 2012, the respondents are claiming ownership over land in RS.Nos.410-1 and 410-3. 11. The suit schedule property which is claimed by the petitioners and respondents are not the same. The claim of the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint and prayer ought to have been allowed by the trial Court and the contesting parties would have to establish their right for seeking the said relief before the trial Court. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed in IA.No.64 of 2018 in OS.No.138 of 2013 deserves to be set aside. The petitioners be 7 permitted to carry-out the amendments in the pleadings and prayer of OS.No.138 of 2013 on the file of learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur by paying the requisite and applicable Court Fee. 12. Considering the submission that the suit was filed in the year 2013, the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, shall endeavour to dispose off the suit in OS.No.138 of 2013 on merits within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of the order. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 09.03.2026 KGM 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.338 of 2020 Dated 09.03.2026 KGM