APHC010076562020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 508/2020 Between: 1.KESIREDDY SRILAKSHMI, DIED 2.KESIREDDY ADHI PALLAPARAO, S/O.SRI K.SUBBA RAO HINDU, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC.EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.2-148/ 1 LAKSHMI GANAPATHINA GAR CHODIMELLA VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP 3.KESIRCDDY ROHIT SAITEJA, S/O.SRI K.ADHI PALLAPA RAO HINDU, AGED 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT R/O.D.NO.2-148/1, LAKSHMI GANAPATHI NAGAR CHODIMELLA VILLAGE, ELURU MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP 4.DRONADULA SUPRIYA, W/O.SRI D.SRIKANTH HINDU, AGED 29 YEARS OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.2-47 APPANNAVEEDHI, TALLAMUDI HANUMAN JUNCTION, PEDAPADU MANDAL W.G.DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. GORRELA JAYALAKSHMI, W/O.LATE,SRI GORRELA MURTHY HINDU, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE R/O.D.NO.3-14, VINAYAK NAGAR VENKATAPURAM PANCHAYAT, ELURU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP 2. JUJJUVARAPU JAYARAJU, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS HINDU, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O.AMBICA VARI STREET POWERPET, ELURU, W.G.DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 3. TAKOOR UMA BAI, W/O.NIRANJN SINGH, HINDU, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEWIFE R/O.D.NO.3A-13-10/1, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, ELURU, W.G. DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. TAKOOR NIRANJAN SINGH, S/O.JEEVAN SINGH, HINDU, AGEC. 56 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.3A-13-10/ 1, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE ELURU, W.G DISTRICT, A.P. 5. KONDABATHITLA SATYA TABITHA, W/ O.NEHMYA, AGED 33 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.6 -14, AMBEDKAR COLONY KAIKARAM VILLAGE, UNGUTUR MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT, AP 6. KOMMANA PUMA CHANDRA RAO, S/O.NARASIRNHA RAO HINDU, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS R/O.H.NO.EWS-7, HOUSING BOARD COLONY SATRAMPADU, ELURU, W.G.DISTRICT. 2 7. BALLA VIDYASAGAR, S/O.SRI B.SRIRAMULU HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.4-2, SHANTINAGAR, ELURU W.G.DISTRICT, AP 8. BAYYARAPU RAMESH, S/O.REDDY, HINDU, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, R/ O.D.NO.7 A-1, LANKAPET, TANGELLAMUDI, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP 9. TAHERA BEGUM, W/O.MOHARNMAD SHARIFF, AGED 55 YEARS OCC.HOUSEWIFE, R/O.KANNAPURAM VILLAGE KOYYALAGUDEM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT, AP 10.MD S SHARIFF, S/O.MD.S TARIFF, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC.EMPLOYTEE R/O.HOUSING BOARD, NEAR SBI MAIN BRANCH ELURU, W. 3.DISTRICT, A.P. 11.MD IBRAHIM SHARIFF, W/O.MD.E HARIFF, AGED 33 YEARS, R/O.KANNAPURAM, KOYYALAGT IDEM MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH 12.KASIBOTLA KAMALA KUMARI, W/O.SRI SURYA CHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEWIFE R/O.LIG H-1, H.NO.84, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, VATLURU, PEDAPADU MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT, AP ...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 tothe Order and Decree Dt.18-12-2019 passed in 1.A.No.837/ 2019 in O.S.No.111/2014 on the file of the court of the VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. NO. 111/2014 on the file fo the Court of the VIII Addl. District Judge, W.G. District. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI 2.V V SATISH The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.508 OF 2020 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed, aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2019 passed in I.A. No. 837 of 2019 in O.S. No. 111 of 2014 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property. It is further submitted that the petitioners have filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and a consequential direction to the defendants to deliver possession of the same. 3. It is also submitted that, during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners sold land admeasuring 140.22 square yards to one Alapati Divya vide a registered sale deed dated 12.06.2019 and delivered possession to her. The petitioners, therefore, intended to amend the schedule property by restricting their claim to an extent of 359.78 square yards. 4. The learned Judge, after considering the submissions of the contesting parties, dismissed the Interlocutory Application, observing that Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot be pressed into service to cause injustice to the other side. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, having filed the suit, the petitioners are entitled to restrict their claim to the extent of the property over which they claim right, title, and interest. 4 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners do not have any right to part with any extent of the land. Even as per the prayer in the plaint, they are seeking the relief of declaration along with a consequential relief of delivery of possession. In such circumstances, the petitioners could not have parted with the property during the pendency of the title suit. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 7. The rights of the parties would have to be adjudicated by the learned trial Judge, and the claim over the property would also have to be determined by the learned trial Court. However, when the plaintiffs intend to restrict their claim to a smaller extent of land, having asserted that they have sold a portion thereof, they ought to be permitted to restrict their claim to land admeasuring 359.78 square yards, this Court is not determining the competenancy of the plaintiff to alienate the land. It is for the trial Court to determine suit claim on merits. 8. On these considerations, the impugned order dated 18.12.2019 passed in I.A. No. 837 of 2019 is hereby set aside. The petitioners are permitted to amend the plaint schedule property to the extent they intend to claim by deleting the extent which they claim to have sold. 9. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed. In view of the amendment of the plaint, the defendants may file an additional written statement, if so required. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 6 281 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.508 OF 2020 Dated 31.03.2026 KGM