CRP/3496/2025 of K SUBRAMANYAM REDDY Vs K KESAVULU REDDY on 29 April 2026

1. K SUBRAMANYAM R YEARS R/ O LA VILLAGE, G.D. NELL

1. K.KESAVULU REDD ABOUT 78 YEARS

2. K.KAMALAINMA, W/ YEARS

3. K.MADHAVA REDDY YEARS

4. K.YUVARAJ REDDY YEARS

5. K.YUGANDHAR RED YEARS

6. K.MOHAN REDDY, YEARS ALL ARE BUKKAPATNAM VIL DISTRICT.

Counsel for the Petitioner

1. Mr.N.RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Responde

1. Mr.L J VEERA REDD Orders Reserved on : Orders Pronounced on : Orders Uploaded on : HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA VISION PETITION No: 3496 OF 2025 REDDY, S/O K.VENKAT REDDY, AGED A KSHMI NARAYANAPURAM, BUKKA ORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PET AND DY, S/O LATE K.KATTAMINA REDDY / O K.KESAVULU REDDY, AGED AB Y, S/O K.KESAVULU REDDY, AGED AB , S/ O K.KESAVULU REDDY, AGED AB DDY, S/O K.KESAVULU REDDY, AGED A S/ O K.KESAVULU REDDY, AGED AB E RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NARAYANA LLAGE, G.D. NELLORE MANDAL, CH ...RESPOND r: Y ent(S): Y 06.03.2026 30.04.2026 01.05.2026

BOUT 67 PATNAM TITIONER Y, AGED BOUT 73 BOUT 47 BOUT 43 BOUT 39 BOUT 39 APURAM, HITTOOR DENT(S):

NJS, J CRP_3496_2025

The Court made the following ORDER:

The petitioner / plaintiff in O.S.No.320 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate), Chittoor, against the order dated 08.10.2025 in I.A.No.335 of 2025, filed the present Revision Petition.

2. The said suit is filed initially seeking an injunction against the respondents / defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner / plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. The 1st respondent / 1st defendant filed a detailed written statement on 30.10.2017. While denying that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, the defendant specifically asserted that they are absolute and rightful owners of the plaint schedule property and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. When the suit is coming up for the evidence on the defendants’ side and after filing of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of D.W.1, the petitioner / plaintiff filed the above mentioned I.A.No.335 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘C.P.C.’) r/w Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to permit him to amend the plaint and to carry out consequential amendments. The respondents / defendants filed their counter and contested the matter.

NJS, J CRP_3496_2025

3. The learned Trial Court after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the I.A., in question.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff. Also heard learned counsel for the respondents / defendants.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to impress upon the Court that the learned Trial Court erred in not considering the matter in the proper perspective and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. He submits that the proposed amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, but the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the same. He submits that the order of the learned Trial Court in dismissing the application in question on the premise that the petitioner / plaintiff did not chose to amend the plaint at the earliest point of time after filing of the written statement is not tenable. He submits that a plain reading of the provision i.e., Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., would make it clear that the Court has ample power to permit the parties to amend the plaint at any stage of the proceedings. He further submits that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / defendants by allowing the amendment as sought for by the petitioner, that the nature of the suit by virtue of the amendment will not be changed. Further that in the event, the Court is of the opinion that the application is filed belatedly, the same can be ordered by imposing costs. Making the said submissions and placing reliance on the decisions

NJS, J CRP_3496_2025

reported in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh1 and Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu & Another2, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. Drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., in question, the learned counsel submits that the averments made therein are vague and does not contain a specific averment that inspite of due diligence, the petitioner / plaintiff could not file the application for amendment of plaint before commencement of trial. He submits that the only intention of the petitioner / plaintiff is to protract the litigation, that there are no merits in the matter and the learned Trial Court was right in dismissing the application seeking amendment of plaint and no interference is called for.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

8. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for adjudication is whether the order under Revision is liable to be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of the case?

1 (2009) 10 SCC 626 2 (2002) 7 SCC 559

NJS, J CRP_3496_2025

9. At the outset, it is pertinent to note from the material available on record, to the plaint dated 06.07.2017, a detailed written statement was promptly filed on 30.10.2017. Specific pleas not only denying the possession of the petitioner / plaintiff was taken, but also a specific case about the defendants’ title over the plaint schedule property was set up. After lapse of about eight years, when the matter is coming up for evidence on the side of defendants, the application in question was filed. It is true that mere delay in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the same.

10. In Surender Kumar Sharma’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even if the amendment prayed for is belated, while considering such belated amendment, the Court must bear in favour of doing full and complete justice in case where the party against whom the amendment is to be allowed, can be compensated by costs or otherwise.

11. In Sampath Kumar’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that amendment of pleadings at pre-trial amendment stage should normally be more liberally allowed than amendment sought after commencement of the trial. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the delay of 11 years in filing the application for amendment of plaint by itself is not a ground to reject the application.

12. Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the

NJS, J CRP_3496_2025

proceedings and on such terms as may be just. However, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial.

13. In the present case, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition, there is no specific averment that inspite of due diligence, the petitioner / plaintiff could not sought amendment of plaint before commencement of trial. It is simply stated that at the time of filing of the suit, by mistake and oversight, he had not pleaded certain important facts with regard to schedule property and did not seek for declaration on his right and title. Such bald and vague averments does not satisfy the test of due diligence as required under Law.

14. This Court in Jonnala Subba Reddy v. Yerra Varaha Narasimham & Others’ case (C.R.P.No.420 of 2021 dated 15.07.2022) referring to the legal precedents on the subject, opined that exercise of due diligence is a ‘Sine qua non’ for considering the application for the amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, inter alia on the premise that plea regarding exercise of due diligence has not been taken.

15. In the light of the factual and legal position, this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The point is answered accordingly.

NJS, J CRP_3496_2025

16. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed, as this Court see no perversity or illegality in the order warranting exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

Date: 30.04.2026 BLV

NJS, J CRP_3496_2025

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3496 OF 2025 Date:30.04.2025 BLV