APHC010191102023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. CHALLA VENKATA SATYA ARAVIND,, S/O SRI HARINARAYANA, HINDU, AGE- 52 YEARS, OCC YARD, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA 2. ALAPATI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O LATE SRI SUBBA RAO, HINDU, AGE- 55 YEARS, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA 3. PAMULAPATI VENKATESWARLU,, S/O SRI SUBBA RAJU, HINDU, AGE- 58 YEARS, OCC APPALASWAMY STREET, MOHANTHY PURAM, VIJAYAWADA 001 4. DHANRAJ SANGHVI,, S/O SRI DALICHAND, HINDU, AGE YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10 STREET, KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA 5. ASHISH SANGHVI,, S/O SRI DHANRAJ, HINDU, AGE OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10 KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA 6. KAVITHA SANGHVI,, W/O SRI ASHISH SANGHVI, HINDU, AGE YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10 STREET, KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1083/2023 CHALLA VENKATA SATYA ARAVIND,, S/O SRI HARINARAYANA, 52 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O PLOT NO. 52, IRON YARD, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 012 ALAPATI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O LATE SRI SUBBA RAO, HINDU, 55 YEARS, OCC- SERVICE, R/O DOOR NO. 76 BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 012 PAMULAPATI VENKATESWARLU,, S/O SRI SUBBA RAJU, HINDU, 58 YEARS, OCC- SEVICE, R/O DOOR NO. 7 APPALASWAMY STREET, MOHANTHY PURAM, VIJAYAWADA NGHVI,, S/O SRI DALICHAND, HINDU, AGE BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10-19-46V, BRAHMIN STREET, KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001 ASHISH SANGHVI,, S/O SRI DHANRAJ, HINDU, AGE BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10-19-46V, BRAHMIN STREET, T, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001 KAVITHA SANGHVI,, W/O SRI ASHISH SANGHVI, HINDU, AGE BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10-19-46V, BRAHMIN STREET, KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001 ...PETITIONER(S) AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CHALLA VENKATA SATYA ARAVIND,, S/O SRI HARINARAYANA, BUSINESS, R/O PLOT NO. 52, IRON ALAPATI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O LATE SRI SUBBA RAO, HINDU, SERVICE, R/O DOOR NO. 76-18-3D/2 PAMULAPATI VENKATESWARLU,, S/O SRI SUBBA RAJU, HINDU, SEVICE, R/O DOOR NO. 7-12-10, APPALASWAMY STREET, MOHANTHY PURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 NGHVI,, S/O SRI DALICHAND, HINDU, AGE- 68 46V, BRAHMIN ASHISH SANGHVI,, S/O SRI DHANRAJ, HINDU, AGE- 43 YEARS, 46V, BRAHMIN STREET, KAVITHA SANGHVI,, W/O SRI ASHISH SANGHVI, HINDU, AGE- 41 46V, BRAHMIN ...PETITIONER(S) 2 1. NUNE SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE SRI PARVATHA REDDY, R/O H.NO. 220, STREET NO. 800, VTS AREA, APKU, KURNOOL - 518 003 2. YAMARTHI RAVI KIRAN, S/O SRI LAKSHMI KANTHA RAO, R/O D.NO. 1-3-28/10, YEDDANAPUDIVARI STREET, VIDHYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 012 3. DEVINENI BENARJI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/O BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 012 (RR-2 AND 3 HEREIN ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS CRP) ...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 call for the records relating to the order made in I.A.No.438 of 2019 in O.S.No.572 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 20-12-2022 and set aside the same and consequently allow the said I.A. in the interest of justice 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O S.No.572 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Ill Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, pending disposal of the present C.R.P. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 extend interim order granted in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.1083 of 2023 dated 26.04.2023 and extended from time to time, pending disposal of the CRP and pass such other may deem fit and proper in the order or orders as this Hon’ble Court circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MAHESH KUMAR KANCHARLA 3 The Court made the following order: Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijyawada in Interlocutory Application No.438 of 2019 in Original Suit No.572 of 2018, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows: i) The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 6, respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.7 and 8 in O.S.No.572 of 2018. ii) Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.572 of 2018 seeking permanent injunction along with I.A.No.422 of 2018 seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property, wherein the Court granted ex parte interim injunction in his favour. However, the defendants, without caring the orders of the Court, intentionally made illegal constructions in the plaint schedule property, despite the injunction being in force. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.438 of 2019, under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice praying the Court to permit him to amend the plaint by adding a relief of Mandatory injunction for removal of illegal constructions in the property. 4 iii) To the said application, the respondents/defendants filed counter denying the averments made in the petition contending that even as per plaint allegations in para No.5, it is stated that ‘while the matter stood thus, the plaintiff came to know that some unauthorized constructions are being made by defendants in the plaint schedule property’. If such a case, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the alleged plaint schedule property, as such, the plaintiff ought to have sought for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, however, he has conveniently sought only a relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, the suit for permanent injunction is wrongly framed and is not maintainable. It is further contended that the plaintiff is seeking the present amendment with an intention to convert the suit for permanent injunction into one for mandatory injunction. It is significant to note that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation, as the construction has been in existence for a long time. Without seeking a declaration that the alleged property belongs to the plaintiff, he cannot seek a relief of mandatory injunction. Hence, the petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. iv) Upon hearing both sides, the Court below allowed the application on the ground that the proposed amendment does not amount to an alteration of nature of suit and that the basic structure of suit remains unchanged. The Court further observed that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, particularly in cases where the limitation depends upon proof of factum of possession/dispossession, such a fact has to be proved by the 5 plaintiff by adducing evidence. Aggrieved by the said order the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahesh Kumar Kancharla, learned counsel for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the Court below failed to consider the cardinal principle of law that a suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title and recovery of possession. He further contended that the Court below grossly erred in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint to include a new prayer for mandatory injunction, particularly when the matter was posted for settlement of issues. Hence prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and consequently dismiss the I.A seeking amendment. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that, the Court below has rightly allowed the Interlocutory Application. He further contended that the illegal constructions made by the defendants have clearly infringed the bona fide and legitimate rights of the plaintiff and that such constructions create an imaginary and fictitious cloud of rights over the plaintiff’s rights over the plaint schedule property. He further contended that by allowing the proposed amendment, the basic structure of suit is not altered and only the nature of relief sought by the plaintiff is changed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 6 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. As culled out from the facts and circumstances of the case, there is a serious dispute in respect of suit schedule property among the plaintiff and defendants. The contention of the petitioners/defendants is that allowing the application for amendment of the plaint to include a new prayer for mandatory injunction is erroneous, as a suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable without seeking declaration of title and for possession. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the amendment changes the nature of the suit. 8. It is well settled law that amendments to pleadings should be liberally allowed, if they are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, provided no prejudice is caused to the other side. In the present case, the proposed amendment is sought on account of alleged subsequent acts of the defendants, i.e., raising constructions during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the amendment appears to be necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute. 9. The contention of the petitioners that the amendment changes the nature of the suit is not tenable, as the original suit is for permanent injunction and the relief of mandatory injunction is only consequential in nature, arising out of the alleged violation of the interim injunction order. Hence, the basic structure of the suit remains unaltered. 7 10. Insofar as the plea of limitation is concerned, the Court below has rightly observed that the same is a mixed question of fact and law, which requires evidence and cannot be decided at the stage of considering an application for amendment. The other contention of the petitioners that the plaintiff ought to have sought declaration of title and recovery of possession is a matter to be adjudicated during the course of trial and cannot be a ground to reject the amendment at this stage. 11. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not interfere with discretionary orders of the trial Court, unless they are perverse or contrary to settled principles of law. A perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds neither any illegality nor impropriety in the order passed by the Court below and there are no valid grounds raised or urged before this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition warranting interference of this Court, as such, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 11.03.2026 MP 8 186 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1083 of 2023 Dated 11.03.2026 MP