APHC010707442022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 50/2023 Between: 1. ADDURI NATARAJA KUMARI, W/O. LATE NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 61-7/11-5, BALAJI NAGAR, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. SINGAMSETTI SIVARAM PRASAD, S/O. LATE GOVINDARAJULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 41-13-22, PALAPARTHI VAARI STREET, NALLA GATE DOWN, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. MAMIDALA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE BABU RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 7 R/O. D.NO. 61-7-11, BALAJI NAGAR, SANGEETHA APARTMENT, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. GOLLA RAJA RAJESWARI, W/O. HARI BABU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 47-15, SKI NAGAR, KANURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. VANGURINAGAMANI, W/O. LATE LAXMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 61-7/1-1 , BALAJI NAGAR, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. SEELAM KOTESWARAMMA, W/O. LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 61-7/1-1 , BALAJI NAGAR, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2 6. PANDARAJU VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. LAKSHMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 61-7/1-1 , BALAJI NAGAR, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 7. SINGAMSETTI VIJAYA, W/O. SIVARAMA PRASAD, AGED MAJOR, R/O. D.NO. 41-13-22, PALAPARTHI VARI STREET, NALLA GATE DOWN, KRISHNALANKA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 8. KONIJETI LAKSHMI, W/O. NARAYANA, AGED MAJOR, R/O.D.NO. 3- 93 C, KAPULAVARI STREET, KAIKALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA 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 toaggrieved by the Order dt. 04-01-2021 passed in I.A.No. 441 of 2018 in O.S. No. 147 of 2018 on the file of the court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District 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 pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 147 of 2018 on the file of the court of the 111 Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the Revision Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GHANTASALA UDAYA BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO 2. BALA MOHAN RAO S The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The suit was filed vide O.S.No.147 of 2018 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. Before commencement of trial, the petitioner/plaintiff filed two interlocutory applications vide in I.A.No.441 of 2018 and I.A.No.442 of 2018. Insofar as I.A.No.441 of 2018 is concerned, it was filed under Order VI Rule 17 duly praying the Court to include some other property also as suit schedule property for partition, as the said property is also joint family property. Insofar as I.A.No.442 of 2018 is concerned, the same was filed under Order I Rule 10 to implead proper and necessary party as defendant Nos.7 and 8. 2. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the implead application vide I.A.No.442 of 2018 and dismissed I.A.No.441 of 2018. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.01.2021 passed in I.A.No.441 of 2018, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard Sri Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bolla Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 7 and Sri Bala Mohan Rao S, learned counsel for respondent No.8. The record reveals that notice has been served on the other respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6, but none appeared. 4. While reiterating the grounds of revision and the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application submitted that the trial Court failed to see the purport of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in a right perspective. Further, after obtaining certified copies of the gift deed, the petitioner came to know that the property covered under gift deed is also self acquired property of the petitioner’s 4 father, who died intestate leaving behind the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 6. 5. However, respondent No.1, without having any exclusive right as a legal heir, gifted the property in favour of respondent No.7. The subject property is also liable to be partitioned along with other suit schedule properties. If the said property is also not added as part of the suit schedule property, the petitioner’s rights will be affected. Further, a separate suit has to be filed, which would result in multiplicity of litigation. The trial Court has failed to see the said aspect and dismissed the application erroneously. In fact, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if such application is allowed. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and also interlocutory application vide I.A.No.441 of 2018. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents in one voice submitted that the petitioner was very much aware about gifting of property in favour of respondent No.7 but did not choose to include the said property in the plaint schedule at the time of filing the suit. Now, at this length of time, considering his request does not arise. The trial Court rightly dismissed the application and no valid grounds raised or urged warranting interference of this Court. It is further submitted that allowing the amendment would change the nature of the suit and the property is also outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. As such, the application was rightly dismissed and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 5 8. Petitioner is the plaintiff who filed suit vide O.S.No.147 of 2018 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for partition of the plaint schedule property into seven equal shares by metes and bounds and to deliver vacant possession of the plaintiff’s 1/7 share to his possession. The said suit was filed on 26.02.2018. In the said suit, the present interlocutory application was filed vide I.A.No.441 of 2018 duly praying the Court to add item No.11 to the plaint schedule property and to amend the prayer and relevant pleadings on the ground that the said property is also joint family property, wherein defendant Nos.1 and 7 executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.8. As the said property is also joint family property of the petitioner’s father, who died intestate, and the same is also liable for partition, such an application has been made. 9. The said interlocutory application was opposed by the respondents/defendants by filing counter denying the allegations duly contending that inclusion of the property would change or alter the quantum of suit and that the property is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the said application duly holding that allowing the amendment at that stage would further delay the suit proceedings, as the proposed amendment requires additional Court fee and the plaintiff did not undertake to pay additional Court fee on the proposed amended plaint. 10. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed contending that if the amendment petition is refused, it would lead to injustice and also multiplicity of litigation and that by virtue of allowing the amendment no prejudice would be caused to the other side. It is further contended that the proposed amendment does not alter or change the nature of the suit and that 6 such amendment is also necessary for effective adjudication of the matter and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, which the Court failed to notice the same. 11. One of the most important factors to be looked into is whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to other side, whether it would fundamentally change the nature and character of the case, or whether a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation as on the date of filing of the application. Admittedly, the trial of the subject suit has not yet commenced. The petitioner/plaintiff is also claiming that the proposed schedule property is also joint family property of the deceased father of the plaintiff and defendents, wherein without any exclusive right conferred, defendant No.1 executed gift deed in favour of defendant No.7, and further defendant Nos.1 and 7 jointly executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.8. If the said property is also not partitioned, the petitioner’s rights will be affected. 12. Time and again, the High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court have culled out certain principles where amendments are to be allowed if they are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The said principle is mandatory, as it is apparent from the use of the word “shall” in the later part of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Further, the amendment application should ordinarily be allowed if the amendment is necessary for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided that it does not result in injustice to the other side. Whether the property is within the jurisdiction of the Court or not and alters the quantum of suit amount requiring additional court fee, cannot be looked into at the time of consideration of 7 application. The trial Court erroneously held that allowing the amendment application would cause further delay in suit proceedings because proposed amendment requires payment of additional Court fee on the proposed amendment plaint. 13. In this context, Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is relevant to extract:- 149.Power to make up deficiency of Court-fees:- Where the whole or any part of any fee prescribed for any document by the law for the time being in force relating to Court-fees has not been paid, the Court may, in its discretion, at any stage, allow the person, by whom such fee is payable, to pay the whole or part, as the case may be, of such Court-fee; and upon such payment the document, in respect of which such fee is payable, shall have the same force and effect as if such fee had been paid in the first instance. 14. In view of the above, the ground on which the petitioner’s application was dismissed by the trial Court is erroneous and liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As such, the order dated 04.01.2021 passed in I.A.No.441 of 2018 is set aside. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and I.A.No.441 of 2018 is also allowed. With regard to Court fee, the trial Court shall dealt with the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 10th February, 2026 JLV 8 66 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 50/2023 Date: 10th February, 2026 JLV