1 APHC010126892021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 550/2021 Between: 1. K ANAJANEAYULU @ K.RAMANJANEYULU, S/O LATE K RAMA CHANDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BUSINESS 2. K V KRISHNA @ KRISHNA, S/O LATE K RAMCHANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BUSINESS 3. K BHARANI, S/O LATE RAMA CHANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, BUSINESS 4. K PATTABHI RAMAIAH, S/O LATE RAMA CHANDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, EMPLOYEE ALL PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O OF H.NO.76/97-163-8, INDIRAGANDHI NAGAR, WEAKER SECTION COLONY, KALLUR, KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. S MEHARAJ, S/O RASOOL MIAH, AGED 52 YRS, MUSILAM, R/O H.NO 76/97-163-8, INDIRAGANDHI NAGAR, WEAKER SECTION COLONY, KALLUR, KURNOOL. 2. KURUVA PEDDA SUNKANNA, S/O KURUVA LAXMANNA, AGED 50 YRS, HINDU, R/O PENCHIKALAPADU VILLAGE, GUDUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SURESH KUMAR POTTURI 2. C PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 550/2021 O R D E R: 1. Instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against an Order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool in I.A.No.10 of 2021 in O.S.No.113 of 2013. 2. Brief facts of the case are that - the petitioners are the defendants before the learned Court below. Respondent being a plaintiff filed a suit for declaration in respect of suit schedule property. The suit was proceeded up-to arguments stage. At this stage, respondent filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying to amend the plaint schedule. The learned Court below has allowed the prayer. Being aggrieved by such order of allowing plaintiff/respondent to amend the plaint schedule property, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the suit was presented in the year 2013, but amendment petition was filed in the year 2021, after the suit was posted for argument. He further submits that during the examination of the petitioners as well as respondent, the amendment petition was not filed. Moreover, the amendment petition is time barred. The learned Court below has allowed the application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code erroneously, thereby, the defendants will suffer irreparable loss and they have been prejudiced by the impugned Order. 4 In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has filed an unreported Judgment of the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court, Madhurai Bench in C.R.P. (MD) (PD) No.341 of 2021 in Thiraviam Chettiar Vs. Maragathavalli and others. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners on citing the judgment has submitted that the Single Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Madhurai Bench has clearly held that the application for amendment is barred by limitation. He submits that in the present case, the question of limitation was not decided by the learned Court below in deciding the application under order VI, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, thereby the order passed by the learned Court below is pervasive one. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned Order has not caused any prejudice to the Petitioners. Initially, the respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration in respect of a particular suit property. Extent was given in the plaint schedule. After careful perusal on record, it appears to the plaintiff that he is not entitled to get the extent of property which was mentioned in his registered sale deed dated 21.12.2002. The vendor of said registered sale deed had no title over the entire extent. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the petition for amendment to restrain his declaratory title in respect of particular land or portion of land, which he is entitled by way of earlier deed of his vendor. He further submits that by way of amendment, the plaintiff intends to clear the title through a registered deed in his favour as well as linked deed of his 5 vendor. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the learned Court below in passing the impugned order has clearly assigned that such correction is maintainable, if such correction is not allowed, multiplicity of proceedings would be cropped up. He submits that the Law of Limitation is not applicable in this case as the plaintiff is not claiming any further relief. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It appears that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration in respect of plot No.22 in Sy.No.314. It appears that by way of amendment, the plaintiff tried to restrict the total extent of the said suit plot about 22 square yards. In the plaint schedule property, the extent of the land was more which is according to sale deed dated 21.12.2002. On perusing the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has noted the link document regarding passing of title in favour of the vendor of the respondent/plaintiff. Usually, amendments are allowed in a suit - when the amendment shall not change the nature and character of the suit; or when it does not cause prejudice to the defendant; or when the proposed amendment is not time barred. Usually, amendment is also allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to accord substantial justice to the parties. Usually amendment was not allowed when it appears that by such amendment a valuable right of the defendant would be curtailed, which he has already been obtained due to long pendency of the suit; or if any particular new claim is introduced. In this particular case, it appears that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration. By proposed amendment, the nature and character of the 6 suit shall not be changed. Moreover, the plaintiff himself restricted to the portion of the suit property which was less than his actual claim in the suit. If the proposed amendment is allowed, any of the defendants’ right would not be violated. Moreover, the defendants who have already filed a written statement stating their right over the same schedule property shall not be defeated. 7. Considering the entire aspect, it appears that the proposed amendment is not barred by Limitation. Considering the aspect, it appears that the learned Court below in paragraph No.13 of the impugned order has assigned proper reason for allowing the amendment. In my view, the reasoning in paragraph No.13 is justifiable and it requires no interference. Hence, the instant Civil Revision Petition is hereby dismissed as devoid no merits. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, without costs. The learned court below is directed to dispose of the suit according to law, as early as possible, most preferably within eight (08) weeks, from the date of receiving this order. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:05.01.2026. 7 131 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.550 OF 2021 DATED:05.01.2026. KS