Date of reserved for orders : ---- Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010481242025 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: 2345/2025 Between: 1. AKKISETTY SUBBARAYUDU, S/O CHENCHAIAH, HINDU,ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING IN D.NO.2/14, MATTAM VEEDHI,EGUVAPETA, SIDHOUT TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. KOTHAPALLI LAKSHUMMA, S/O NAGESAM, HINDU, ABOUT 71 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO.2/19, MATTAM VEEDHI,EGUVAPETA, SIDHOUT TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. KOTHAPALLI NAGABHUSHANAM, S/O NAGESAM, HINDU, ABOUT 41 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO.2/19, MATTAM VEEDHI,EGUVAPETA, SIDHOUT TOWN AND MANDAL, KADAPA 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 to Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A. No.6/2025 in A.S. No. 12/2018 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajampet at Badvel dated 24.06.2025, the above named petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition, 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 may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in AS No. 12/2018 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Tjack Court), Rajampet at Badvel pending disposal of the above Revision and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above civil revision petition was filed assailing the order dated 24.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in A.S.NO.12 of 2018 on the file of the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajampet, Badvel. 2. Heard Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents. 3. The petitioner, being the plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S.No.15 of 2013 against the respondents herein on the file of the learned Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sidhout, for declaration of title, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement. The Trial Court, by Judgment and Decree dated 11.09.2018, dismissed the aforementioned suit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal vide A.S.No.12 of 2018 on the file of the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge (Fast Tract Court), Rajampet, Badvel. Pending the appeal, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6 of 2025 to amend the plaint and to insert para No.3A in the plaint. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application, it was pleaded that the father of the petitioner by name Akkisetty Chenchaiah purchased 240 Square yards in Sy.No.64/1 of Sidhout Village under a registered sale deed dated 13.05.1980. The said document was misplaced. Page 3 of 6 Recently, he found the Xerox copy of sale deed and informed the counsel. On the advice of the learned counsel, he applied for a certified copy of the registered sale deed, and accordingly, an application was filed to amend the plaint by incorporating para No.3A. A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents, opposing the application. 5. The Appellate Court dismissed the I.A.No.6 of 2025 on the ground that if the proposed amendment is allowed, it introduces new pleadings compared to what was originally pleaded in the plaint; fundamentally changes the nature of the case, and leads to the introduction of a totally new case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the plaint, it was pleaded that the plaintiff acquired the property by way of inheritance as well as by way of a registered Gift Deed dated 02.12.2011 from his mother. Before the said document, the father of the plaintiff was in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as the lawful owner. The father of the plaintiff died intestate, and after his death, his wife i.e., the mother of the plaintiff, succeeded to the same as his legal heir, and she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same till the execution of the registered gift deed dated 02.12.2011 in favour of the plaintiff. By way of an amendment, the petitioner intends to incorporate the registered sale deed dated 13.05.1980, whereby the father of the plaintiff purchased the property. 7. In M/s Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. M/s. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors1, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the application filed for amendment, observed as follows: “Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments 63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: 1 2009 (10) SCC 84 (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 64. The decision on an application made under Order 6 Rule 17 is a very serious judicial exercise and the said exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner. We can conclude our discussion by observing that while deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments.” 8. In the case at hand, the Appellate Court failed to consider the factors summed up in Revajeetu Builders’s case. Since the entire material is not placed before this Court, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Appellate Court to consider the I.A.No.6 of 2025 afresh, keeping in view the guidelines mentioned in M/s Revajeetu Builders & Developers case referred to supra. Page 5 of 6 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the following directions: (i) The order dated 24.06.2025 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2025 in A.S.No.12 of 2018 on the file of the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajampet, Badvel, is hereby set aside. Hence, the I.A. is restored. (ii) The learned Appellate Court shall consider the I.A. afresh, keeping the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned in M/s Revajeetu Builders & Developers and also the judgment of this Court in E. Anand Kumar v. Dr. A. Narahari Reddy and others2 and pass a fresh order, within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 30.06.2026 TVN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 2 2002 (6) ALT 356 11 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2345 OF 2025 Date: 30.06.2026 TVN