Date of reserved for orders : --- Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026 Date of uploading : 08.07.2026 APHC010217992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1119/2025 Between: 1. KARRE MADHU MOHAN CHAKRAPANI, A S/O VENKATA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O D.NO.19-18-7/D, KATARI NAGAR 7TH STREET, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. NIMMALA RADHA KRISHNA, S/O VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O ADAVIKOLANU VILLAGE, NIDAMARRU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT AT PRESENT D.NO.19-23-11, C/O AREGELLA SWARUPA RANI 25TH WARD, BANK COLONY, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 2. NIMMALA VENKATA SATYA PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O RADHA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O ADAVIKOLANU VILLAGE, NIDAMARRU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT AT PRESENT D.NO. 19- 23-11, C/O AREGELLA SWARUPA RANI 25TH WARD, BANK COLONY, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 3. NIMMALA LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O RADHA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O ADAVIKOLANU VILLAGE, NIDAMARRU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT AT PRESENT D.NO.19-23-11, C/O AREGELLA SWARUPA RANI 25 TH WARD, BANK COLONY, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 4. NIMMALA SURYA PRABHA, W/O RADHA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O ADAVIKOLANU VILLAGE, NIDAMARRU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT AT PRESENT D.NO. 19-23-11, C/O AREGELLA SWARUPA RANI 25TH WARD, BANK COLONY, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 5. PAPOLU VIJAYA RATNAM, W/O SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O ADAVIKOLANU VILLAGE, NIDAMARRU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 toThe above-named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition, having been aggrieved by the Decree and Order dated 26-03-2025 passed in I.A No.156/2025 in O.S No.170/2018, on the file of the HOBLE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI for the following grounds among other IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings in O.S No. 170 of 2018 on the file of the HON BLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition, and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA 2. The Court made the following ORDER : Heard Sri K.Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 26.03.2025 in I.A.No.156 of 2025 in O.S.No.170 of 2018 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status in the suit. 4. The plaintiffs instituted the suit O.S.No.170 of 2018 seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 20.01.2018, against five defendants. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the Defendants 1 to 3 in the suit executed an agreement of sale on 20.01.2018 in favour of the plaintiff, and defendant No.4 is the mother of defendants 2 and 3, who also signed the agreement on behalf of defendant No.2. Subsequently, defendant No.5 purchased the property under a registered sale deed, dated 21.03.2018. 5. The plaintiff, having shown the subsequent purchaser as defendant No.5 to the suit, did not seek a specific relief against defendant No.5. 6. There was no contest by defendants 1 to 4, and they were set ex parte by the trial Court. Defendant No.5, the subsequent purchaser, has filed a written statement and has been contesting the suit. Page 4 of 9 7. The trial in the suit is completed, and written arguments were filed by the respective parties. At that juncture, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.156 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the main prayer in the suit, as follows: “1. To add the word „and 5th‟ after the words „primarily directing the 1, 2, 3‟ in (a) relief of main relief in the plaint in the above suit. 2. To add the word „and 5th‟ after the word „directing the 1 to 3‟ in the relief (a) in alternative relief of the plaint in the above suit. 3. To add the letter „s 1 to 3 and 5‟ after the word „defendant‟ in relief (b) in alternative relief of the plaint in the above suit.” 8. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was pleaded that at the time of filing the plaint, by mistake or inadvertently, the relief was not specifically asked against defendant No.5. 9. Defendant No.5 filed a counter and opposed the application. The trial Court, by order dated 26.03.2025, dismissed the application on the ground that the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that defendant No.5, being the subsequent purchaser of the property, after the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff, was arrayed as a party defendant to the suit. In fact, in the plaint, it was mentioned that defendant No.5 would not get any right or title over the property under the guise of the two sale deeds. Having arrayed defendant No.5 to the suit, not claiming relief against defendant No.5 in the prayer, is only a mistake. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire evidence is on record. No further evidence needs to be adduced if the amendment is allowed. The finding of the trial Court that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation is contrary to Sections 19(b) and 22(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.5/defendant No.5, on the other hand, supported the order of the trial Court. 12. The point for consideration is whether Whether the Order dated 26.03.2025 passed in IA No.156 of 2025 in O.S.No.170 of 2018 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Eluru, West Godavari, suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting the interference of this court? 13. Thus, as seen from the pleadings, the subsequent purchaser is shown as defendant No.5 in the suit. In the plaint, it was specially averred that defendant No.5 purchased the property under two registered sale deeds after the agreement of sale. However, in the prayer, no relief was claimed against the 5th defendant. In fact, the 5th defendant alone is contesting the suit. 14. An amendment can be allowed if the party seeking it satisfies two conditions: (a) of not work injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Page 6 of 9 15. The Court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide and dishonest amendments. The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. However, an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Of course, in all circumstances, the courts, while deciding such prayers, should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. A liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. 16. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd1, after considering numerous precedents concerning the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:— (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if - (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) 1 (2022) 16 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are - (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.” 17. In the case at hand, by way of the amendment, the plaintiff prays to amend the prayer and to include defendant No.5 in the main prayer. It neither changes the pleadings nor the nature of the suit. Whether the claim is barred by law or not is a disputed question of fact. The same can be decided based upon the evidence on record. The trial Court failed to consider this aspect and dismissed the petition solely on the ground of limitation. Indeed, the counsel for the petitioner stated that no further evidence will be adduced by the plaintiff due to the amendment and the same is recorded. 18. Given the discussion supra, the order under revision brooks interference of this Court. 19. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that no further evidence is required is recorded. Since the application was filed at the fag end of the suit, and the same is allowed, the plaintiff shall pay costs of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) to the defendant No.5 within two weeks and file a memo before the trial court. If defendant No.5 declines to receive the costs, the plaintiff shall deposit the same with the District Legal Service Authority and file a memo before the trial court. The trial Court, if necessary, shall frame an issue regarding the limitation and consider the same. The plaintiff shall carry out the amendment and file a neat copy of the plaint in terms of Order VI Rule 18 C.P.C within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Since the arguments have already been completed, the trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 29.06.2026 ikn Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1119 of 2025 Date : 29.06.2026 ikn