APHC010331632024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1731/2024 Between: 1. MAHABOOB BASHA @MAHMOOD BASHA, S/O LATE IBRAHIM MIAH @ IBRAHIM SAAB.AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.46/149,BUDHAWARA PETA STREET, KURNOOL ...PETITIONER AND 1. BOYA RAGHAVENDRA NAIDU, S/0 Boya Madhusudhan Naidu, Aged about 40 Years, R/o D.No. 17/98-B, RKT Street Kumool ...RESPONDENT 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 topleased to allow the present revision petition and set aside the orders passed by The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool In I.A No. 152/2024 in O.S no. 11/2020 dated 08-07- 2024 and consequently allow the application 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S No. 11/2020 on the file of The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool till the disposal of main revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 2 1. RAJA BHOGENDRA NATH S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G SRAVAN KUMAR The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present civil revision petition has been filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders passed in I.A.No.152 of 2024 in O.S.No.11 of 2020 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, dismissing the petitioner’s application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to amend the plaint. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioner/plaintiff got filed the suit in O.S.No.11 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, for declaration of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession. 3. In the said suit, the petitioner herein filed interlocutory application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint and thereby to incorporate the prayer of mandatory injunction apart from recovery of possession, on the ground that the respondent/defendant made certain constructions. 4. To the said application, the respondent/defendant denied the allegations, by duly contending that the petitioner/plaintiff created a false sale deed and claiming right over the suit schedule property. Further, contended that the petitioner, without filing an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the plots of the petitioner and respondent with the help of Mandal Surveyor and without finding of Mandal Surveyor as to whether the respondent trespassed into the petitioner’s title or not, filed the present application for amendment of the plaint with the prayer with all untenable grounds. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the application. 4 5. Upon hearing both parties, the trial Court made the following points for consideration, which reads as follows:- 1. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to amend the plaint and for consequential amendments of the plaint as shown in the petition schedule? 2. To what relief? and accordingly dismissed the application on the ground that no application for amendment shall be allowed after commencement of trial unless the Court comes to conclusion that, in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, and whereas the petitioner had knowledge of the construction made by the respondent prior to filing of the suit itself, but did not seek for grant of mandatory injunction in the suit prayer. Assailing the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. 6. Heard Sri Raja Bhogendra Nath S, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. While reiterating the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court failed to see the purport of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in a right perspective. In fact, the interlocutory application has been filed along with the suit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying the Trial Court to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from making any further construction in the petitioner’s A & B schedule property pending disposal of the suit. Though the said application was moved out of order, so far no orders have been passed and same is pending for consideration. In the meanwhile, the constructions have been completed. When the constructions have been completed, a mandatory injunction is very much 5 required. In the event the suit is decreed in favour of the petitioner and the constructions remain, filing another suit for removal of the constructions would lead to multifarious litigations. If amendment is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent, if not allowed, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, the order impugned is erroneous and liable to be set aside and accordingly prayed to allow the civil revision petition. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff issued a legal notice before filing suit when the respondent/defendant commenced his construction and when certain constructions were available at the time of filing the suit and having knowledge about the construction did not choose to seek a prayer for mandatory injunction as well. Asking mandatory injunction by way of amendment at this length of time does not arise. No due diligence has been shown and the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. The petitioner has not raised any grounds warranting interference of this Court and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the revision. 9. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 10. It is not in dispute that at the time of filing the suit, construction had commenced, wherein the petitioner/plaintiff also filed interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the construction and according to the submissions made by both the counsel, the same is pending adjudication. Now, as the constructions have been completed the present interlocutory application 6 has been filed by the petitioner to amend the prayer by incorporating the relief of mandatory injunction as well. The said application has been dismissed solely on the ground that the amendment application has been filed after commencement of trial and no due diligence has been pleaded for filing the said application after commencement of trial. When the petitioner had filed ad-interim injunction application and the Court has not considered so far and, in the meanwhile, the constructions were completed, the Court cannot find fault with the petitioner that such application has been filed after commencement of trial. The petitioner made an effort to see that the constructions are stalled at the very beginning of filing of the suit, but no reasons as to why the said interlocutory application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC was not dealt with by the trial Court. In fact, if such application is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the defendant, and if it is not allowed, as rightly contended by the petitioner, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. The order impugned is erroneous and the petitioner has made out a case warranting interference of this Court. 11. As stated supra, the order passed by the trial Court is held to be erroneous and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I.A.No.152 of 2024 is allowed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 05th February, 2026 JLV 7 197 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1731/2024 Date: 05th February, 2026 JLV