ORDER :

G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.

Heard Ms. T.V. Sridevi, learned Counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioners and Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order passed in I.A.No.96 of 2024 in O.S.No.28 of 2018. The said Suit was filed for cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed dated 21.11.2014 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2.

3. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the Suit, Defendant No.2 further alienated the property in bits and pieces to Defendant Nos.3 to 8. It is submitted that the Trial has not commenced. The Plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application No.96 of 2024 seeking the consequential relief of recovery of possession. Vide Order dated 29.07.2025, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam dismissed the Interlocutory Application, stating that the Plaintiff is required to file a Statutory Suit for recovery of possession of the Plaint Schedule Property because the cancellation of the document alters the nature of the Suit for the recovery of possession. The reasoning given by the learned Judge is usefully extracted hereunder:

(d) Here, the petitioner reveals apparently that recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property limitation is different the plaintiff is at liberty to file separate suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property because the cancellation of document alters the nature of the suit from recovery of possession. So, here the court opined that at this juncture, the amendment of recovery of possession by adding item No.3 and 4 are enlarge the schedule can be seen as change the nature of the suit which is generally, not permitted. The plaintiff had knowledge of the schedule item at the time fo filling of the suit adding of additional schedule items in the pending suit changes the fundamental character of the suit. The amendment which introduced entirely new cause of action or change of nature of the suit may not be allowed. The Honourable APEX court also confirmed the above principle in several judgments so invoking the said principle and considering the above foregoing reasons, this court declined to allow the petition. POINT is answered accordingly.”

4. Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has not disputed the fact that the trial has not commenced. However, he seeks to sustain the Impugned Order, also, on the ground that the Plaintiffs ought to have filed the Interlocutory Application earlier and that there is delay on the part of the Plaintiff in filing Interlocutory Application No.96 of 2024 while the Suit was filed in the year 2018.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the following Judgments:

(i) Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another : (2022) 16 SCC 1 ; (Paras 71.1, 71.2, 71.5, 71.9 & 71.11)

71.1. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

71.2. 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 6 Rule 17 CPC.

71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement