APHC010474672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2563/2024 Between: 1. MALKAPURAPU NAGESWARA RAO, (DIED) 2. PUSULURI PADMA, W/O VEERABHADRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O JONNALAGADDA VILLAGE, GUNTUR MANDAL AND DISTRICT. 3. RAJAVARAPU VANI, W/O PURNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O D. NO. 8-2/5-2, FLAT NO. C-2, SAI TULASI APARTMENTS, SAI NAGAR, TUNI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MALKAPURAPU VENKATESWARULU, (DIED) 2. MALKAPURAPU PADMAVATHI, (DIED) 3. MOTHUKURI MALLESWARI, W/O SREENU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O NANDIGAMGUDIPUDI VILLAGE, SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. YALAVARTHI ARUNA, W/O. CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O NANDIGAMGUDIPUDI VILLAGE, SATTENAPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. EMBULURI SILUVAKUMARI, W/O ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O. RUPANAGUNTA VILLAGE, NEKARIKALLU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. MALKAPURAPU KOTESWARARAO, (DIED) 7. MALKAPURAPU VENKATA NARASAMMA, W/O LATE MOHANARAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, C/O NIZAMPATNAM DESAMMA, D. NO. 1-68, PENUDURUPADU POST, CHUNDURU MANDAL, GUNUR DISTRICT. 8. BADDELA RAMYA KRISHNA, W/O SIVA NANCHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, C/ NIZAMPATNAM DESAMMA, D. NO. 1-68, PENUDURUPADU POST, CHUNDURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 9. MALKAPURAPU SIVANNARAYANA, S/O MANMADHUDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O. LATCHANAGUDIPUDI VILLAGE, TADEKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 10. PUSULURI SEETHARAVAMMA, W/O UMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O. SAKHAMURU VILLAGE, THULIUM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 11. YANAMADALA LAKSHMIKANTAM, W/O RATTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O. KUMMARLA VEEDHI, ITHANAGAR, TENALI POST, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 12. MALKAPURAPU MANIKYAMMA, (DIED) 13. MALKAPUMPU NAGESWARARAO, S/O VENKATESWAMLU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O SAKHAMUM VILLAGE, THULIUM MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 14. MUTLURI PURNACHANDRARAO, S/O SIVA SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. KOLANUKONDA VILLAGE, TADEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 15. UMMADIVARAPU VENKATA SATYANNARAYANA, S/O PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC- GOVT EMPLOYEE, R/O.NEKARIKALLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 16. UMMADIVARAPU RAJYALAKSHMI, W/O VENKATA SATYANNARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O NEKARIKALLU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 17. MALKAPURAPU NAGENDRAM, W/O LATE KOTESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O. TUMMALAPALEM VILLAGE, UNNAVA POST, PATTIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 18. THALLURI SIVA LEELA, W/O SUBBARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O. TUMMALAPALEM VILLAGE, UNNAVA POST, PATTIPADU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 19. MALKAPURAPU NIRMALA, D/O KOTESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O TUMMALAPALEM VILLAGE, UNNAVA POST, PATTIPADU MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 20. MALKAPURAPU PARVATHI, W/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O LATCHANAGUDIPUDI POST, TADEKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 21. NIMMAKURI LAKSHMI, W/O BRAHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- HOME MAKER, R/O MACHAVARAM POST, PONNURU MANDAL, GUNTUR 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 SET-ASIDE the order dated 14-10-2024 made in lA.No.521 of 2024 in O.S. No. 157 of 2014 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District and allow lA.No.521 of 2024 in O.S. No. 157 of 2014 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 STAY all further proceedings in O.S. No.157 of 2014 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, Guntur District, pending disposal of main C.R.P. and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU 2. The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Yarlagadda Yashwanth, learned counsel representing Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, Sri D.Prudhvi Teja, learned counsel representing Sri Yathindra Dev, learned counsel for the respondents 13 and 14, and Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, 7, 8 and 17 to 19. 2. The plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against the order I.A.No.521 of 2024 in O.S.No.157 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri. 3. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.157 of 2014 seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties. The plaint schedule properties consist of two items. Item No.1 consists of an extent of Ac.0.30½ cents of site with a tiled house bearing door No.1-50/2 of Sakhamuru Village, and item No.2 consists of an extent of Ac.1.00 cent of dry land out of Ac.5.08 cents of land, in Sakhamuru Village. The trial in the suit was completed, and the suit is coming up for arguments. 4. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.521 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w 151 CPC, seeking to amend the plaint by adding paragraph 4(e) and deleting item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and substituting the same due to the change of the nature of the land pending the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended, inter alia, that item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was taken over by CRDA under the Land Pooling Scheme and residential and commercial plots were allotted to defendants 13 to 16. The said development took place during the pendency of the suit. Since the nature of item No.2 of the plaint scheduled property had changed, the amendment was necessitated. The 13th respondent filed a counter opposing the application. Some of the respondents supported the proposed amendment. The trial Court, by an order dated 14.10.2024, dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the order passed by the trial Court while dismissing the application suffers from jurisdictional error and other infirmities. The trial Court failed to consider that the suit was filed seeking partition. Pending the suit, item No.2 was taken over under the Land Pooling Scheme. The nature of the land was changed, and plots were allotted to defendants 13 to 16. The said aspect was not considered by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents 13 and 14 would contend that the petitioners filed the application belatedly without assigning any reasons. The petitioners also failed to file the Market Value Certificate along with the proposed amendment. He also would submit that the plaintiffs are not in joint possession of Item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. 7. It is an established principle of law that an amendment can be allowed if it satisfies two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 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. 8. 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 - 1 (2022) 16 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 (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) (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.” 9. Thus, while considering the application seeking amendment, the trial Court shall not go into the merits of the matter. Whether the amendment proposed is necessary for effective adjudication of the suit alone is required to be considered. In fact, in the judgment referred to supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court pointed out that even if the amendment petition is filed at a belated stage, the respondents can be compensated by costs. If the amendment is necessary for effective and proper adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the same can be allowed. 10. In the case at hand, as noted supra, pending the suit, the land was taken over under the Land Pooling Scheme, and plots were allotted to defendants 13 to 16. The plaintiffs ought to have filed the application seeking amendment at the earliest point of time. However, they failed to file an application till the suit was coming up for arguments. Though the nature of the suit will not be changed, having regard to the conduct of the plaintiffs in filing the application at such a belated stage and the amendment being necessary, the plaintiffs must compensate the defendants contesting the application. 11. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Hence, the order under revision brooks interference. Accordingly, I.A.No.521 of 2024 in O.S.No.157 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, stands allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- by the plaintiffs to the respondents 13 and 14 within two weeks from today. Thereupon the plaintiffs shall file a memo before the trial Court. The plaintiffs shall file a neat copy of the amended plaint as mandated under Order VI Rule 18 within two weeks from receipt of a copy of this order. Since the suit is of the year 2014, the learned trial Court shall expedite disposal of the suit in view of the circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/ 2022, dated 23.11.2022. 12. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 20.07.2026 SNI 195 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2563 of 2024 Dated: 20.07.2026 SNI