Date of reserved for orders: 22.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026 Date of uploading : 30.06.2026 APHC010687492022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2694/2022 Between: 1. NERUSU CHINTTAIAH, S/O.VENKATA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.4-25, PUNADIPADU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. NERUSU BHASKARAMMA, W/O.CHINTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R1O.D.NO.4-25, PUNADIPADU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. LOYA DHANA LAKSHMI, W/O.RAMA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.4-25, PUNADIPADU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA AGENT, NERUSU SIVA PRASAD, S/O.CHINTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.4-25, PUNADIPADU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. BOBBA SIVA PRAKASH, S/o.Seetaramaiah, aged about 57 years, R/o. Plot No.14, Road No.2, Bharathinagar,Vijayawada-520 008, Krishna 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 petitioners beg to present the above Revision Petition in this Honourable Court aggrieved by the Order dated 02-12-2022 in I.A.No.675 of 2022 in 0.S.No.153of 2021 in the Court of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in 0.S.No.I53of 2021 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition in this Honourable Court and pass such 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 to extend the interim stay granted on 20-12-2022 in C.R.P.NO. 2694 of 2022 until further orders pending disposal of the above Revision petition in the Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K V ADITYA CHOWDARY The Court made the following: ORDER Plaintiffs in the suit, represented by GPA Holder, filed the above revision against the order dated 02.12.2022 in I.A.No.675 of 2022 in O.S.No.153 of 2021 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. 2. The plaintiff, represented by GPA Holder, filed the suit O.S.No.153 of 2021 against the defendant seeking redemption of 3 simple registered mortgage deeds dated 29.10.2018, in favour of the defendant etc. 3. The defendant filed a written statement and has been contesting the suit. 4. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.675 of 2022 to amend the plaint by incorporating Paragraph-3A. In the proposed amendment, it was pleaded that on the same day i.e. on 29.10.2018, the defendant has also obtained the signature of one Kovelamudi Venkata Kutumba Rao on the revenue stamp affixed on the blank printed promissory note and copies of 2 title deeds of the property situated in Eluru Road, Vijayawada belonging to him and his wife, towards security with a condition to return the said documents after discharging the entire amount due under 3 simple registered mortgage deeds dated 29.10.2018 executed by the plaintiffs in respect of plaint schedule properties. Due to old age and by oversight, the said fact was not mentioned in the notices exchanged between the parties and also in the plaint. Recently, the plaintiffs came to know about the same when K.V.Kutumba Rao informed them about the said transaction, and immediately, an application was filed. 5. A counter was filed on behalf of the defendant by denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It was contended that the proposed amendment is only an afterthought, and the plaintiff failed to give sufficient reasons. 6. The trial court, by order dated 02.12.2022, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 7. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ch.Madhava Raman, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that the trial in the suit has not been commenced. The trial Court failed to consider the said aspect. He would further contend that in the suit filed by the respondent herein i.e. O.S.No.239 of 2011 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the 1st petitioner herein, seeking recovery of an amount on the foot of mortgage, an identical plea was raised by way of amendment, and the same was allowed. He would further contend that the observations of the trial Court while dismissing the application are unwarranted. 9. Sri Ch.Madhava Raman, learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the order of the trial court, would contend that the application was filed as an afterthought. The trial Court considered the said aspect and dismissed the said application, and eventually prayed to dismiss the revision. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the order dated 02.12.2022 in I.A.No.675 of 2022 in O.S.No.153 of 2021 on the file VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada suffers from illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? Page 5 of 6 11. Three plaintiffs represented by GPA Holder filed suit O.S.No.153 of 2021, seeking redemption of 3 simple registered mortgage deeds dated 29.10.2018, executed by each of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant. Issues were framed, and the trial in the suit has not been commenced. 12. The plaintiffs, by way of amendment, requested the Court to add Paragraph-3A in the plaint, to the effect that the defendant also obtained signatures of K.V.Kutumba Rao on the revenue stamp affixed on a blank promissory note and also copies of title deeds towards security. Of course, the plaintiffs pleaded that due to old age, the said fact was not mentioned in the notices exchanged. It is a settled principle of law that the pre-trial amendments, the trial Court shall consider liberally. 13. In this case on hand, the trial in the suit is yet to be commenced. In fact, in a suit filed by the respondent, being plaintiff for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note O.S.No.239 of 2021 on the file of the same Court against the 1st revision petitioner herein, being the defendant, he raised an identical plea in the written statement and the same was allowed by the Court on 20.10.2022. The trial court's observation that K.V.Kutumba Rao is not a party to the suit and thus the I.A. is meritless needs to be interdicted. It is for the plaintiffs to prove their case, since the suit was filed seeking redemption, and the plaintiffs specifically pleaded that the defendant obtained signatures of said K.V.Kutumba Rao on the blank promissory note and also received title deeds towards security of a loan transaction in O.S.No.153 of 2021. 14. Given the discussion supra, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it, and the order impugned suffers from illegality and perversity, which brooks interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Allowed. The order dated 02.12.2022 in I.A.No.675 of 2022 in O.S.No.153 of 2021 on the file VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, is set aside. I.A.No.675 of 2022 in O.S.No.153 of 2021 stands allowed. The plaintiff shall file amended copy of the plaint as per Order VI Rule 18 of CPC, after receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No