APHC010605482025 Tuesday, the seventeenth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Between: Lingala Venkata Reddy and Anke Koteswaraiah and Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Ineni Venkata Prasad Counsel for the respondents: Nil The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the seventeenth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.3217 of 2025 Lingala Venkata Reddy Anke Koteswaraiah and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ineni Venkata Prasad espondents: The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the seventeenth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3217 of 2025 ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order, dated 23.10.2025, allowing I.A.No.390 of 2025 in O.S.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadiri, filed under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead the petitioner therein, by name, Anke Koteswaraiah, as plaintiff No.7, seeking the following consequential amendment. Proposed plaintiff No.7: 7) Anke Koteswaraiah S/o Anke Musalappa, aged about 50 years Agriculturist, residing at Door No.3-127- A, Ankevaripalli, H/o. Bonala. Lingala Mandal, YSR District. List of Document: Registered sale deed dated 21-12-2011 vide document No.9501/2011 executed by the respondent No.1 (plaintiff No.1) in favour of the petitioner (proposed plaintiff No.7). 2. Initially, the sole plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.54 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadiri. On the death of the sole plaintiff, the plaintiffs Nos.2 to 5 were brought on record as her legal representatives. The plaintiff No.6 and defendant No.2 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.4. The suit was filed against the revision petitioner / defendant No.1 seeking cancellation of the gift deeds bearing Nos.8707 of 2011, 8708 of 2011, both dated 28.11.2011, executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the plaint schedule property of Ac.1.02 cents in Sy.No.87 within the limits of Mukkandlavari Kothapalle revenue, Mukkandlavari Kothapalle 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3217 of 2025 Grama Panchayat, Obuladevara cheruvu Mandal, Ananthapur district. The gift deeds were executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of the defendant No.1 on 28.11.2011, but the plaintiff No.1 again executed deeds of cancellation of the gift deeds on 29.11.2011 vide documents Nos.8720 of 2011 and 8721 of 2011. In spite of execution of the deeds of cancellation, the suit was filed stating that these documents have to be cancelled through Court. 3. The respondent No.1 herein who filed I.A.No.390 of 2025 contended that the plaintiff No.1 sold the suit schedule property to him for valid consideration under a registered sale deed, dated 21.12.2011 and inducted him in possession of the property and therefore, he is a party interested in the relief claimed in the suit and that he had come to know about the suit recently before filing the petition in the year 2025. Claiming himself to be a bona fide purchaser, to safeguard his rights and interest in the property, he claimed to be advised to file the petition. 4. The respondents Nos.1 to 6 reported no counter while the petition was opposed by filing counter of revision petitioner / respondent No.7 / defendant No.1 as follows: The allegations in the affidavit of the petitioner are false. The petition was filed suppressing all the material facts and without having any right and title in the property. The alleged sale deed, dated 21.12.2011 is false, fictitious and created. The plaintiff No.1 has no right or title to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner after execution of the registered gift deeds in favour of the defendant No.1. The petition is filed only to drag on the suit. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3217 of 2025 5. The other respondents have not filed counter. 6. After hearing the petitioner and the respondent No.7 / defendant No.1, the trial Court allowed the petition observing that the petitioner is a proper party and that unless he is impleaded as a party to the suit, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. 7. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed contending that the affidavit of the petition itself clearly shows that pending the documents for cancellation, the proposed party purchased the suit schedule property under the alleged sale deed, but the trial Court failed to properly appreciate and that the order impugned in the revision is devoid of merit. 8. In spite of service of notice on the respondent No.1, there has been no appearance. 9. No notice was ordered to the other respondents as they have not contested the petition. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.222 of 2007 against the plaintiff No.1 before the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, for perpetual injunction regarding the very same schedule property and that the said suit was pending as on the date of filing of the present suit, yet, the false suit for cancellation of the gift deeds was filed by the plaintiffs only to drag on the issue. He further submitted that the son of the plaintiff No.1 who is also a party to the suit as plaintiff No.3 is the son-in- law of the revision petitioner, but he is behind the entire litigation in getting the gift deeds cancelled or filing the suit or creating the sale 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3217 of 2025 deed in favour of the respondent no.1 herein. He further submitted that the petition was filed only to drag on the proceedings though it is said that the petitioner obtained the sale deed well before filing of the suit itself. It is pertinent to mention that though the sale was said to be made on 21.12.2011 and the suit was filed in March, 2012, the proposed party was not made a party to the suit along with the sole plaintiff by then. Of course, the proposed party says that he came to know about filing of the suit recently before filing the petition but failed to state how he had come to know about the pendency of the suit. If the entries in the revenue account indicate the name of the defendant No.1 for such long period and the name of the proposed party had not been entered in the revenue account since December, 2011, till the date of filing of the petition, why the proposed party kept silent is not apparent from the record. Therefore, the assertion that he had no knowledge of the suit is not believable. 11. As per Rule 28 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice & Circular Orders, 1990, an application filed under Order I Rule X C.P.C., shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments and the application shall be dismissed if it is not in accordance with the law or the rules. 12. This Court in V. Madhuri Vs. B. Bala Naidu and Ors.1 held as follows: 1 2023(3) ALD 360 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3217 of 2025 “…To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, omissions and delay, Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1990, mandates that an application for amendment made under Order I Rule 10, Order 6 Rule XVII or Order XXII CPC shall also contain a prayer for all consequential amendments and that the Presiding Officer shall reject the application if it is not in accordance with the law or these rules, though as a normal rule different reliefs cannot be sought in a single petition by virtue of Rule 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice. However, it is a very common vexed lapse noticed in many petitions that either no consequential amendment is sought or inadequate, improper or inappropriate amendments are sought in the applications referred in the Rule 28. In fact, such amendment or lack of consequential amendment is causing delay and much trouble to the parties and courts. In spite of mandatory condition in Rule 28, petitions under Order I and Order XXII CPC are being registered without proper verification at the threshold. Just because some or other amendment is mentioned as consequential amendment, that may not be sufficient or proper. Many times, whenever any party is proposed to be impleaded, amendment only to short and long cause title are sought, without seeking any further amendment to the pleadings with regard to the party to be impleaded. All such facts are usually stated only in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking impleadment, but not as proposed consequential amendments. Since facts stated in the affidavit do not form part of the pleadings in the 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3217 of 2025 main proceedings, it is very essential to specifically seek them. Just for the sake of complying Rule 28, improper or inadequate consequential amendments are sought, at times, like in the present case. It is sometimes asked by petitioner(s) that permission may be given to make consequential amendments without revealing what it/they is/are. It cannot be treated as due compliance of Rule 28. Once pleadings or averments are filed before Court, no part of it can be amended without permission of court. Unless what amendment to be made is stated, nobody knows what will be amended. Under the guise of amendment, it is possible to make amendments which are otherwise not permissible. Therefore, unless the specific amendments proposed are stated in the petition, court or other party do not have an opportunity to verify whether such amendments can be permitted or not. If impleadment of a party whose presence in a suit or proceedings is necessary, is refused on the technical ground for not asking any consequential amendment or asking only improper amendment, a matter cannot be completely adjudicated and dispute cannot be resolved. As such, it is very much essential to check the petition(s) mentioned in rule 28 before registering it and see that all proper consequential amendments are sought in the same petition and register the petition only if adequate and proper amendments are proposed.” 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3217 of 2025 It was further held therein as follows: “Rule 28, unlike other rules or statutes which refer to 'court', casts duty on the 'Presiding Officer'. So it is felt necessary to instruct all the judicial officers in this state to ensure thorough and proper checking of the petition before registering the petition to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, delays and unwilling dismissal.” 13. A perusal of the petition shows that except seeking amendment of the short and long cause title by incorporating the name and other details of the proposed party in the cause title, there is no other amendment of the pleadings as stated by the petitioner in his affidavit. Therefore, even if he is allowed to come on record, except his name in the cause title, there would be no pleading in the plaint regarding his interest in the suit schedule property. Consequently, the defendant No.1 would have no opportunity of taking any pleading against the proposed party. As a result, no evidence can be let in regarding the alleged sale by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of the proposed party, as it is settled principle of law that no amount of evidence can be received without there being a supporting pleading. Under these circumstances, even if the proposed party is allowed to come on record, no purpose would be served. In any case, the interest of the proposed party in the suit schedule property is dependent on the right of the plaintiff No.1 and the result in the suit is binding on the proposed party. If the proposed party can only be a witness to give evidence for the plaintiffs, he need not be a party to the suit. 14. Normally, as a purchaser, he could have been a necessary or proper party to the suit. Apart from such eligibility, other considerations 9 BSB, J C.R.P.No.3217 of 2025 which are noted above shall also be taken into account. The trial Court failed to examine the above aspects and allowed the petition only on the ground that he is a proper party to the suit. Therefore, the impugned order requires to be interfered with. 15. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order, dated 23.10.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kadiri, in I.A.No.390 of 2025 in O.S.No.54 of 2012 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.390 of 2025 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.17.02.2026 RAR