Telangana High Court
CRP/2422/2026 of Ramavath Heera @ Veera Vs Katari Ramanaiah on 18 September 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2422 0F 2026 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 09-07
13257l
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2422 0F 2026
Petition under Arlicle 227 of the constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 09-07 -2026 passed in lA. No. 1'12 of 2026 in New o.s. No. 198 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Junror civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First class, Miryalaguda.
Between:
Ramavath Heera @ Veera, S/o
Agriculture, R/o. Balnepally Village,
District, Telangana.
Hanumanthu, Aged 59 years, Occ.
Ad av id evu la p a lly l\rlandal, Nalgonda
...PETITIONER
AND
1. Katari Ramanaiah, S/o Gullaiah, Aged 59 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Balnepally Village, Adavidevulapally A,ilandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana.
2. Katari Sambaiah, S/o Gullaiah, Aged 69 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Balnepally Village, Adavidevula pa lly IVlandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana
3. Dasari Gopaiah, S/o Chandraiah, Aged 74 yearc, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Balnepally Village, Adavidevula pa Ily [/andal, Nalgonda District, Telangana
4. Palapothula Kotaiah, S/o Saidulu, Aged 49 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Balnepally Village, Adavidevulapally IVandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana.
5. Bathula Rambabu, S/o ldaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rio Balnepally Village, Adavidevulapa lly [\4andal, Nalgonda District, Telangana.
6. Bathula Pitchamma, Wo Kashaiah, Aged 74 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Balnepally Village, Adavidevulapally IVlandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana.
7. Dasari Saidaiah, S/o Pullaiah, Aged 59 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Balnepally Village, Adavidevulapally Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana.
B. Dasari lrlallaiah, S/o Pullaiah, Aged 64 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Balnepally Village, Adavidevulapally [\4andal, Nalgonda District, Telangana.
9. Bathula China Anjaiah, S/o Muthaiah, Aged 79 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Balnepally Village, Adavidevulapally It/andal, Nalgonda Distnct, Telangana.
...RESPONDENTS
--'-
f .A. NO: 1 OF 2026
Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circums:ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings in New O.S. No.198 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Olass, IVliryalaguda, pending disposal of the present civil revision petitton.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Ch Satyasadhan Counsel for the Respondents : - The Court made the following: ORDER
)
-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2422 o12026
(CNR No. H8HC010537022026)
DATED: 18TH SEPTEMBER
BETWEEN:
Ramavath Heera @ Veera
Petitio ner
AND
Katari Ramanaiah and others
Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petitiorl is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 09.07.2026 passed in lA No 112 of 2026 in New O S No 198 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.121 oI 2017) by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class, lVliryalaguda, whereby the application filed by the petrtroner under Order Vl Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the southern boundary of the suit 'A' schedule property by showing 'Flood Flow Canal and Road' instead of 'Road leads to Adavidevulapally to Chityala', was dismissed 02 Heard Sri Ch. Satyasadhan, learned counsel for the petitioner Perused the material avatlable on record -
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment sought for is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. He contended that the proposed amendment, whereby the southern boundary of the suit 'A' schedule property is sought to be amended by substituting the existing description, namely, 'Road leads to Adavidevulapally to Chityala', with 'Flood Flow Canal and Road', nr:ither introduces a new cause of action nor alters the nature and character of the suit. He further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents by permitting the proposed amendment, as they would have ample opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner and adduce evidence, if any, with regard to the proposed change in the southern boundary during the course of trial. Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the impugned order ancl allow the Civil Revision Petition.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed proof of service vide [t/lemo dated 03.09.2026, along with online tracking reports, and submitted that personal notices sent to the respondents were served on them on 27.08.2026. ln view of the said proof of service and the presumption of service under Section 27 of lhe General Clauses Act, service of notice on the respondents is held sufficient Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents 05 Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record, the issue that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the learned trial Court was justified in dismissing the application frled by the petitioner seeking amendment of the southern boundary of the suit 'A' schedule property. lt is to be noted that the amendment sought for by the petitroner pertains to the description of the southern boundary of the suit 'A' schedule property. The proposed amendment, on the face of it. does not seek to introduce a new cause of action or change the nature and character of the suit The correctness or otherwise of the proposed description of the southern boundary is a matter to be examined on the basis of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties during the course of trial. lt is also relevant to observe that permitting the proposed amendment, by itself, would not deprive the respondents of their right to contest the claim of the petitioner. The respondents would have ample opportunity to file their additional pleadings, if necessary, and to cross-examine the petitroner and other - witnesses on the aspect of the southern boundary of the suit 'A' schedule property
06. ln the considered opinion of this Court, the proposed amendment would assist in effectively adjudicating the real controversy between the parties and avoidin 3 multiplicity of proceedings. The learned trial Court, instead of rejecting the amendment, ought to have considered whether the proposed change could be permitted by imposing appropriate conditions and safeguarding the rights of the respondents. The apprehension of prejudice, if any, cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be a ground to deny the amendment altogether, particularly when the respondents would have sufficient opportunity to contest the same during t'ial 07 ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its revisronal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.07 12026 passed in
1. A.No.112 of 2026 in New O.S.No.198 of 2022 (Old O S.No 12'l of 2017) by the learned Principal Junlor Civil Juclge-cum-Judicial t\/agistrate of First Class, l\4iryalaguda, is liable to be set aside.
---
OB Accordingly, with the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned order dated 09 07 2026. Consequently, lA.No 112 of 2026 filed by the petitioner under Order Vl Rule 17 read with Section '1 51 CPC is allowed, permitting the petitioner to carry out the proposed amendment to the southern boundary of the suit 'A' schedule property by substituting 'Road leads to Adavidevulapally to Chityala' with 'Flood Flow Canal and Road', The learned trial Court shall afford reasonable opportunity to the respondents to file their additional. pleadings, if any, and to cross-examine the petitioner and other witnesses, as may be necessary, in relation to the proposed amendment lt is made clear that the observatrons made herein are confrned to the disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition, and the correctness of the amended boundary description shall be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. The learned trial Court is further directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit, as expedttiously as possible, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. $D/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPYi/ SE TION OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Junror Civil Judge cum Judicial [\/agistrate of First class, lvliryalaguda.
2. One CC to SRl. CH SATYASADHAN Advocate [OPUC
3. Two CD Copies M TPK/GNK
t sIP 2t}26 A ?. l, a: HIGH COURT DATED: 1810912026
ORDER
CRP.No.2422 ot 2026 ) )a
,:.' i t.,, 'i\. CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISPOSED OF ,
P,\1 STA j1