1 APHC010689922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 82/2026 Between: 1.KARNI SOWJANYA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC HOME MAKER, R/O UDDANAM GOPINADHAPURAM VILLAGE, VIJRAPUKOTTURU MANDAL, SRI KAKULAM DISTRSICT 2.MS KARRI SUSHMA, D/O KARNI TIRUPATHI RAO AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC- STUDENT, R/O UDDANAM GOPINADHAPURAM VILLAGE, VAJRAPUKOTTURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.SRI KONDA BHEEMA RAO, S/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC TEACHER, R/O RUKUMPETA (VILLAGE), LD PETA POST, VAJRAPUKOTTUR (MANDAL), SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.RAVI KIRAN PONNURU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pemmasani, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The Revision Petitioners herein are the Plaintiffs in O.S.No.53/2015. The said Suit is filed seeking Permanent Injunction against the Respondent/Defendant. Plaintiffs have based their claim on the strength of a Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 04.03.2014 and that the possession of the said property was delivered as on the date of the Registered Gift Settlement Deed. 3. The Respondent/Defendant had filed Written Statement in the year 2015 wherein the Defendant has laid a claim of ownership of the property based on a Settlement Deed dated 29.03.2004 and had also stated that the Defendant has been in possession and ownership of the subject property on the strength of the Settlement Deed dated 29.03.2004 itself. The Plaintiffs filed I.A.No.595/2025 on or about 23.07.2025 seeking amendment of the Plaint and for inclusion of additional prayer of declaration of ownership as well. The Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palasa, vide Order dated 01.09.2025, was pleased to consider these facts and had dismissed the said I.A.No.595/2025 by holding that the Plaintiffs were aware of the claim made by the Defendant on the strength of the Settlement Deed dated 29.03.2004 and this claim/contention has been on record through the Written Statement filed by the sole Defendant in the year 2015 itself. 4. Sri Vinod Kumar Pemmasani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners had made an attempt to explain the delay in filing the said I.A. on the basis that the Plaintiffs/Petitioners were minors as on the date of filing of the Suit. 5. It transpired from record that as on the date of filing of the Plaint, the Plaintiff No.1 was already a major and Plaintiff No.2 is aged about 15 years. Therefore, this Court would not agree with the submissions made by Sri Vinod 3 Kumar Pemmasani, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, that the Plaintiffs were minors as on the date of filing of the Suit, which is the reason for filing an Application in July, 2025 for amendment of the Plaint and declaration of ownership. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vasantha (Dead) through Legal Representative Vs. Rajalakshmi alias Rajam (Dead) through Legal Representatives: (2024) 5 SCC 282. He has placed reliance on para 54 of the Judgment where there is an observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Plaint can be made amended at any stage of the Suit and that even at the second appeal stage also Plaint can be amended. 6. Having regard to the facts of this case, this Court is of the view that the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 54 of the above Judgment would not apply until the Petitioners/Plaintiffs are able to show and convince the Court that even by exercise of due diligence, certain facts were not within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and that the Plaintiffs have acquired knowledge of new facts during the course of the trial. In the present case, this factual scenario does not arise inasmuch as the Plaintiffs were fully aware of the fact that the Defendant has laid a claim of ownership based on a Settlement Deed dated 29.03.2004 since the same has been specifically averred by the Defendant in the Written Statement filed in the year 2015 itself. 7. In this view of the matter, the present Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:22.01.2026 Vns