APHC010493312024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 397/2025 Between: 1. BONDALA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. MARIDAYYA, AGE 49 YEARS, BUSINESS, D.NO.16-4-58, SAMALKOTA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, (PRESENT KAKINADA DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHALLA VEERA VENKATA PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O. SATHIRAJU, AGE 57 YEARS. BUSINESS, D.NO.1-118, HUSSAINPURAM, SAMALKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT (PRESENT KAKINADA DISTRICT). 2. PUPPALA DURGA, W/O. P.GOVINDU, AGE 29 YEARS, YENUGULAMMAGUDI VEEDHI, BOYANAPUDI VILLAGE, SAMALKOTA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT (PRESENT KAKINADA 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 Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition being aggrieved by the orders in I.A. No. 240/2024 in O.S. 870/2020 dated 12-08-2024 passed by the V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada 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 condone the delay of (63) days in representing the above C.R.P.No.397/2025 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and to pass 2 VS, J C.R.P.No.397 of 2025 IA NO: 2 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Decree and order in I.A. No. 240/2024 in O.S.No. 870 of 2020, dated. 12.08.2024 on the file of V Additional Civil Judge (Junior division), Kakinda in present civil revision petition and to pass IA NO: 3 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 stay of trial of the suit in O.S. No. 870/2020 on the file of the V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada pending disposal of the above CRP on the file of this Hon’ble Court and to pas IA NO: 4 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 vacate the interim stay order Dt. 25.04.2025 passed on in lA.No. 1 of 2025 in CRP No. 397 of 2025 and dismiss this CRP with exemplary costs as devoid of merits in the case and pass IA NO: 5 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 the Interim Stay granted earlier till the disposal of the above C.R.P. No.397/2025 in the interest of Justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. RAMANA ALLU The Court made the following: 3 VS, J C.R.P.No.397 of 2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner herein under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the Orders passed in I.A.No.240 of 2024 in O.S.870 of 2020 dated 12-08-2024 on the file of V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada. 2. The petitioner herein initially filed a suit in O.S.870/2020 on the file of V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada against the defendants/ respondents herein for declaration of title, consequential possession, mandatory injunction and cancellation of registered sale deed dated 25.01.2019 for an extent of 73.65 square yards and other reliefs. 3. The petitioner herein filed an Interlocutory Application No.240 of 2024 in O.S.No.870 of 2020 on the file of V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kakinada under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C and Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to amend the plaint as 92 square yards in the place of 73.65 square yards in the plaint ‘B’ Schedule and also to amend the Court Fee in valuation portion in para No.8 and prayer portion in para No.10 of the plaint and permit consequential amendments in the interest of justice. 4. The said application was dismissed by the Court below vide Orders dated 12.08.2024, challenging which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property of 3106 Sq.Yards of vacant site, which was 4 VS, J C.R.P.No.397 of 2025 acquired by him through the registered sale deed dated 28.06.2014, vide Doc.No.6934/2014, Doc.No.6935/2014 an extent of 1540 Sq.Yards and 1566 Sq.Yards respectively executed by State Bank of India, Bhimavaram Branch, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. It is also case of the petitioner/plaintiff that he executed an agreement of sale in favour of the defendant No.1 for 73.65 Square Yards out of plaint ‘A’ Schedule property and subsequently cancelled the same. Thereafter, the 1st defendant executed a registered sale deed in favour of 2nd defendant for the said 73.65 Sq.Yards and basing upon the said document, the said suit has been filed. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, he filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, which was allowed by the Court below and in pursuance of the same, the Advocate Commissioner visited the plaint schedule property and measured the same and filed his report along with the plan and survey report prepared by the Mandal Surveyor, Samarlakota, wherein it is shown that the disputed property is situated in Survey No.274/3P an extent of 92 Square Yards and the 2nd defendant is in illegal occupation of the same, as per the registered sale deed dated 25.01.2019 executed by the 1st defendant. 7. The 1st defendant taking advantage of the same, got colluded and created a document in favour of the 2nd defendant for an extent of 73.65 Sq.Yards and occupied an extent of 92 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.274/3P, and as the State Bank of India failed to execute a rectification deed, the plaintiff himself got executed a rectification deed dated 21.05.2024, bearing No.22592/2024 5 VS, J C.R.P.No.397 of 2025 by rectifying survey number in the sale deed as 274/3P and 274/4P in the place of 274/3. However, the petitioner filed I.A. seeking the proposed amendment of the Sy.No.274/3P in the place of 274/8 and also to amend the extent as 92 Sq.Yards in the place of 73.65 Sq.Yards under the ‘B’ Schedule property. Admittedly, the petitioner has purchased the Plaint Schedule Property only in Sy.No.274/8 through Bank Auction as per the SARFAESI ACT, 2002 way back in the year 2014. 8. With regard to the extent 73.65 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.274/8, if at all it is the case of the petitioner that he has identified the mistake only after furnishing the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it is for the petitioner to seek rectification of his document, if so required. In fact the document was executed by the Bank, but admittedly, though the petitioner has submitted an application through the Bank, he never sought for the proposed amendment of Sy.No.274/3P in the place of 274/8. 9. In such a case, he cannot be permitted to seek amendment in the present suit. It appears that taking advantage of the Advocate Commissioner report, the petitioner intends to amend the survey number sought by him and the Court below has rightly dismissed the application on the ground that it is a simple mistake or typographical error, but the amendment of the survey number and extent in the schedule is in pursuance of the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. 10. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merits in the present Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6 VS, J C.R.P.No.397 of 2025 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek such rectification by submitting an application to the Bank. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 02.01.2026 KGR