Reserved on: 30.03.2026 Pronounced on:08.04.2026 Uploaded on:09.04.2026 APHC010043322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.282 of 2026 Between: 1. DUVVU VENKATA RAMANA, S/O (LATER) GURU MURTHY, AGED 62 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10-3-5, ANASAPARAPU VEEDHI, VIZIANAGARAM TOWN AND DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. PALLA APPALA SWAMY, S/o Bangarayya, aged 72 years. Business, R/o D.No. 10-4-32, Anasaparapu Veedhi, Vizianagaram Town and District ...RESPONDENT 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 set aside the Docket order, dated 22-08-2025 passed in I.A. No. 399 of 2025 in O.S.No.67/2018 on the file of the Honble Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and allow the above presented Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAYAPROLU SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 22.08.2025 in I.A.No.399 of 2025 in O.S.No.67 of 2018 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram. 2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. When the suit is pending for trial, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.567 of 2023 in the above suit to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding subsequent changes and claims in the plaint paragraphs, plaint schedule and for consequential amendments in the plaint in the interest of justice. 3. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court Judge on the ground that the said act of demolition had taken place in the year 2018, but the application has been filed after lapse of more than four years. As per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the claim for damages is maintainable within the limitation period of three years. The said I.A. order was assailed before this Court in C.R.P.No.994 of 2024 and this Court has allowed the said revision, vide order dated 30.09.2024, and permitted the petitioner-plaintiff to amend the plaint. 3 4. Consequent to the directions of this Court, the petitioner-plaintiff has amended the plaint. The respondent-defendant herein filed an additional written statement asserting that if the petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to insert the amendment prayer, the nature of the suit will be changed, likewise, the other details regarding the time, date, month and year of the alleged demolition is specifically not mentioned, hence, the claim of the damages is bad in law. It is also further pleaded that the said claim is also barred by limitation. 5. For the aforesaid additional written statement filed by the respondent-defendant, the petitioner-plaintiff filed rejoinder to the additional written statement filed by the respondent-defendant, vide I.A.No.399 of 2025, under Section 151 C.P.C., instead of Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 22.08.2025, on the ground that the respondent-defendant had filed written statement long back in the year 2018 and the present application to file a rejoinder of the petitioner-plaintiff was filed in the year 2025, which is after lapse of many years, which is not permissible and no reasons were given by the petitioner-plaintiff for filing of the present application at a belated stage and without giving any sufficient 4 reasons and filing of the present application after lapse of seven years is not permissible and it causes prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent-defendant. 6. The said order dated 22.08.2025 was assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition on the ground that filing of the rejoinder to the written statement is necessary for the plaintiff-petitioner and the delay is not a valuable ground to reject the application to file the rejoinder to the written statement and the written statement should go in axiomatic with each other and they should be part and parcel of the pleadings and it is so necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendant would submit that the petitioner-plaintiff has not obtained any permission as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. and the rejoinder application has to be filed within 30 days from the presenting of the written statement, but in the present case, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the application belatedly and also argued that when there is a specific provision under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. for filing of the rejoinder, the petitioner herein has filed application under Section 151 C.P.C., which is not maintainable when specific provision is provided under the Civil Procedure Code. Even if it 5 is assumed that certain additional facts have been mentioned in the additional written statement, the petitioner cannot come forward with entire new case in his rejoinder. 8. Learned trial Court Judge has erroneously observed that the present application is filed belatedly. In-fact the petitioner-plaintiff has filed an application for amendment of the plaint and the same was dismissed by the trial Court Judge. Assailing the same, the petitioner- plaintiff has filed a Revision before this Court, vide C.R.P.No.994 of 2024, and the same was allowed, vide order dated 30.09.2024, and the petitioner-plaintiff was permitted to amend the prayer of the suit. After amendment of the prayer, the respondent-defendant filed an additional written statement revisiting the counter averments in I.A.No.567 of 2023. However, in the present case, the petitioner herein filed rejoinder containing 18 pages with irrelevant grounds, though the provisions of the CPC, nowhere it was prescribed that the length and breadth of the plaint/written statement or the rejoinder should be minimal. 9. The respondent/defendant filed counter affidavit to the amendment application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the following: If the petitioner-plaintiff is permitted to insert the amendment prayer, the 6 nature of the suit will be changed, and the claim for damages was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the additional written statement, the respondent-defendant had taken the same pleas, in addition, it is stated that the petitioner/plaintiff has not given any other details regarding the time, date, month and year of the alleged demolition is specifically not mentioned, hence, the claim of the damages is bad in law. Since the averments made in the counter- affidavit to the amendment application and those in the additional written statement are one and the same and the respondent – defendant has not taken any additional plea or facts, hence the petitioner cannot file a rejoinder to the additional written statement. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) that is payable to the District Legal Services Authority within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the trial Court is directed to recover the same and if necessary send the petitioner-plaintiff to the civil prison for a period of one week. 7 As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending in both the cases, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 08.04.2026 siva 8 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.282 of 2026 Date: 08.04.2026 siva