1 APHC010174642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 817/2024 Between: 1. Madam Ramamma, W/o. Madam Sankaraiah, Occ-Rtd. Teacher, Aged 81 years, Residing at D.No.7-14-10A, Kamativari Street, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Chitteti Venkata Nagamani, W/o Penchalaiah, Occ- Housewife, Aged about 46 years, Residing at D.No.6/129, Karanala Veedhi, Gudur town, SPSR Nellore district. 2. Chitteti Penchalaiah, S/o Penchalaiah, Occ- Teacher, Age 52 years, Residing at D.No.6/129, Karanala Veedhi, Gudur town, SPSR Nellore District. 3. Bapireddy Balaji Reddy, S/o. Lakshmana Reddy, Occ-Business, Age- 45 years, Residing at d.no.6-3-50, Manikalavari Veedhi, Kavali town, SPSR Nellore District. 4. Bapireddy Padmavathi, W/o. Lakshmana Reddy, Occ-Housewife, Aged 37 years, Residing at D.no.6-3-50, Manikalavari Veedhi, kavali town, SPSR Nellore 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 to being aggrieved by the Order dt. 6.03.2024 passed in lA.No.70 of 2024 in O.S.No.187 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Learned IV Additional 2 District Judge, Nellore, the above named petitioner prefers this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 187 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Learned IV Additional District Judge, Nellore, pending disposal of the main CRP and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A RADHAKRISHNA 2. APPAVU MUNIRAJ The Court made the following order: The present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness and legality of the orders dated 06.03.2024 in I.A.No.70 of 2024 in O.S.No.187/2018 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Nellore. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.187/2018 for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.70/2024 under Order VI Rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint and mandatory injunction directing the defendants 3 & 4 to remove the constructions made by them in the plaint schedule property and to put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the same. The said application is dismissed on 06.03.2024 on the ground that 3 prejudice will be caused to the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri N.Krishna Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Muniraj for R1 & R2 and Sri A.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the R3 & R4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of the revision would contend that, along with suit O.S.No.187/2018, the petitioner filed I.A.No.508/2018 for temporary injunction wherein the court below vide order dated 24.09.2018 granted ad interim injunction and the said order was also served to respondents/defendants on 01.10.2018. The defendants filed their counters in the said application and after hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on record, the court below has allowed the petition with costs and the interim order of injunction granted earlier was made absolute under its order dated 25.02.2021. He further submitted that, during the hearing of I.A.No.508/2018, defendant nos.3 & 4 filed photos of a building constructed in the plaint schedule property. He further submitted that, by virtue of interim injunction granted by the court below, the defendants have no right to make constructions in the plaint schedule property and in order to remove the said illegal constructions and put her in possession, the petitioner filed I.A.No.70/2024, with due diligence, seeking amendment of plaint, mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 3 & 4 to remove the constructions made by 4 them in the plaint schedule property with their expenses and to put her in vacant possession. The said application was dismissed by the court below on the ground that, prejudice would be caused to the respondents. He further submitted that, the court below failed to see the purport of Order VI Rule 17 in a right perspective and failed to observe that the petitioner is not asking any amendments with respect to facts of the case but only seeking further relief of mandatory injunction in the prayer for better adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. As such prayed allow the present revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents in one voice contended that, the fact of construction of building is within the knowledge of the plaintiff during the course of hearing of application for temporary injunction in I.A.No.508/2018, instead of filing the application of mandatory injunction at that stage, she filed now, at the belated stage. They further submitted that, since the petitioner could not explain properly as to why she has filed the said application at the belated stage, the court below has rightly dismissed the said application. Therefore, the petitioner has not raised any grounds warranting the interference of this Court and the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 5 7. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908, empowers courts to allow parties to amend pleadings (plaint or written statement) at any stage of proceedings if necessary for determining the real controversy. Amendments should generally be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided they do not cause injustice to the other side, change the suit's fundamental nature, or introduce time-barred claims. After the trial begins, no amendment shall be allowed unless the court concludes that despite "due diligence," the party could not have raised the matter earlier. 8. By virtue of the said provision, if the parties have an intention to amend the plaint or written statement, as the case may be, it should be made before commencement of trial. If the amendment is sought after commencement of trial, the parties should satisfy the court with regard to due diligence in making such an application pursuant to commencement of trial. 9. No doubt, the law is well settled that all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. Even if there is a delay, the same cannot be a ground to dismiss the amendment application. The court should see whether the relief sought is barred by limitation or not and whether it has mixed questions of facts or not. However, the limitation aspect can be decided by framing a specific issue in that regard. If the application is dismissed, it would lead to multiplicity of litigation. In the present case, the court below has taken due note of the law on hand but failed to consider the said provision (Order 6 6 Rule 17) in a right perspective and erroneously dismissed the application, filed for amendment of plaint, mandatory injunction to direct the defendants 3 & 4 to remove the constructions made by them in the plaint schedule property with their expenses and to put her in vacant possession, on the ground that, prejudice would be caused to the respondents and that the plaintiff has not shown due diligence. The court below failed to see that, the amendments are not allowed if they cause prejudice to the opposing party that cannot be compensated by costs but in the present case, the prejudice caused to the respondents can be compensated by way of costs and the nature of the suit does not change, as such the amendment can be ordered. Therefore, this court deems it appropriate to allow the revision. 10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 06.03.2024 in I.A.No.70 of 2024 in O.S.No.187/2018 is hereby set aside, consequently I.A.No.70 of 2024 is allowed subject to condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.6,000/- to the respondents within a period of four(04) weeks from today. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS