1 Orders Reserved on : 07.05.2026. Orders Pronounced on : 15.06.2026. Orders Uploaded on : 16.06.2026. APHC010005892026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 196 OF 2026 Between: 1. KANIMENI THULASI, W/O LATE MUNEIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HINDU, RESIDING AT M.D. PUTTUR VILLAGE, MADUIBAKA POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.517526 2. KANIMENI SRAVANI, D/O LATE MUNEIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O M.D. PUTTUR VILLAGE, MADUIBAKA POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.517526 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. K CHANDRASEKAR, S/O LATE K.MUNIRATHNAM, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, EMPLOYEE AND AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT M.D. PUTTUR VILLAGE, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.517526 2. K MUNAIAH, (DIED) 3. K MUNEMMA, W/O LATE K. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE 4. K ASHOK MINOR, S/O LATE K.PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, HINDU 5. K KRISHNA CHAITANYA, S/O LATE K.PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, HINDU NO.4 AND 5 ARE MINORS REP BY THEIR 2 MOTHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN 2ND RESPONDENT THE DEFENDANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT M.D. PUTTUR VILLAGE, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRKT.517526 6. K BHUVANESWARI, W/O M. VENKATAMUNI, D/O LATE K.MUNIRATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO.19-8-811D3, YADAVA COLONY, R.C. ROAD, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT517501 7. MEKALATHURU CHANDRASHEKHAR, S/O RAJASEKHARMODALI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HINDU, AGRIUCULTURIST, RESIDING AT D.NO.8-32-1, NAGARI VEEDHI, PAPNAIDUPET VILLAGE, YERPEDU MANDAL.517526 8. P ASHOKAN, S/O LATE PURUSOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT D.NO.14-766, PANCHALINAGAR, RENIGUNTA VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.517520 9. P RAVI, S/O LATE PURUSOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT D.NO.14-766, PANCHALINAGAR, RENIGUNTA VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.517520 10. A RAJU, S/O LATE P.ASHOKAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT D.NO.14-766, PANCHALINAGAR, RENIGUNTA VILLAGE AND POST. TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.517520 . ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NAGARAJU NAGURU 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 11.11.2025 in I.A.No.822 of 2025 in O.S.No.188 of 2014, on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikalahasti. 2) The 1st respondent herein / plaintiff filed the said I.A. under Oder I Rule 10 of CPC r/w Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice with the following prayer:- “That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the Hon’ble court may be pleased to permit petitioner / plaintiff to amend the plaint for adding the 3rd party purchases whose particulars mentioned below the petition along with consequential amendment as shown below the petition in the interest of justice and pass such other orders which are just and necessary orders in the circumstances of this petition.” 3) While furnishing the particulars of the 3rd parties / proposed defendants 9 to 11, consequential amendment of plaint was also prayed for by adding paragraph 8(d) in the plaint, which reads as follows: “8(d) The plaintiff humbly submit that during pendency of the suit the plaintiff learnt that the 1st defendant and one Bharathi have jointly created two sale deeds bearing Nos.1215/2012 and 1216/2012 in favour of the defendants 9 and 10 and in turn the 9th defendant executed a gift settlement deed bearing document No.306/2014 pertaining to C plaint schedule lands which are not acted upon and not binding on the plaintiff and they were created by them behind back of plaintiff. Thus, the defendants 9 to 11 shall not get any right over the plaint C schedule lands.” 4) In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., the reason for filing of the same was sought to be explained. 5) Opposing the said application, 6th and 7th defendants / petitioners herein filed counter, inter alia, to the effect that in the written statement which was filed in the year 2014 all the relevant aspects were set out and though the 4 plaintiff is well aware of the same, filed the application in question after about 12 years at a belated stage. It was also pleaded that as per proviso to amended Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has been commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial, that the application in question is without bona fides and filed only with a view to protract the matter. 6) Learned Trial Court allowed the I.A., and the relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “In the said circumstances and as per above authorities this court is inclined to allow this petition to implead proposed parties as D9 to D11 and for the rest of the amendment for impleading para No.8(d) the petitioner is at liberty to file Order 6 Rule 17 petition. Hence this Court is inclined to allow this petition for impleading Respondents 9 to 11 as defendants 9 to 11 in the main suit. In the result, the petition is allowed permitting the petitioner to bring the proposed parties 9 to 11 as defendants 9 to 11 in the main suit as per consequential amendment mentioned in the petition. The rest of the Claim is hereby dismissed with regard to amendment of Pleadings.” 7) Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions assailing the order under challenge with reference to various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision petition. His main contention is that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the I.A. in question at a highly belated stage without considering the matter in the correct perspective. He also submits that the learned Trial Court has not examined the matter with reference to well settled legal position in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal case1 etc., for ordering application 1 (2005) 6 SCC 733 5 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC and committed a serious error in relying on the decisions pertaining to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. In any event, learned counsel submits that the order under challenge is not sustainable as it suffers from legal infirmity. 8) Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand made submissions to sustain the impugned order. It is his contention that the learned Trial Court had assigned cogent reasons for allowing the application in question and that the impugned order warrants no interference. 9) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 10) On appreciation of rival contentions and perusal of the impugned order, the point that arises for adjudication is “Whether the order under revision warrants interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?” 11) At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that the affidavit filed in support of I.A. is cryptic. The dates of the documents, which are stated to be registered about two years prior to filing of the suit, were not mentioned. From a reading of the said affidavit, it would appear that application was filed on the advise of the counsel to add some third parties / proposed defendants for proper adjudication of the dispute. The details of the so called documents / sale deeds, however, were set out in the petition only in para 3 (amendment to plaint as proposed), but relief in respect of the same was not granted. At the same time, the learned Trial Court granted liberty to the 1st respondent / plaintiff to file an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. In such 6 circumstances, learned Trial Court ought to have considered the matter with reference to Order I, Rule 10 of CPC. Curiously, it relied on the decisions with regard to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Learned Trial Court, in the considered view of the Court committed a serious error in ordering the application in question, without examining the matter in the correct perspective, much less in the light of binding legal precedents for considering the applications under Order I, Rule 10 of CPC. Further it appears that the impugned order has been passed without notice to the proposed parties. Though several grounds were urged, this Court having been satisfied that the order under revision suffers from in proper exercise of jurisdiction, inclined to interfere with the same. The point is answered accordingly. 12) For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for passing orders afresh, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law. No costs. 13) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:15.06.2026 Ssv 7 HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CRP No.196 OF 2026 Date:15.06.2026 Ssv