O R D E R

Challenging the Order, dated 25.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.384 of 2022 in O.S.No.9 of 2015 by the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the trial Court’) filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’), the petitioners herein/plaintiffs preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein/plaintiffs filed suit against the respondents herein/D1 to D3 for the relief of declaration of their right and title over the schedule properties and for permanent injunction. Originally, the schedule properties and other properties belonged to one Hanumakka. She executed a Registered Usufructory Mortgage in favour of one Thimmaiah under Registered Mortgage Deed, dated 21.09.1928 vide Document No.1907/1928 of SRO, Hindupur. Ever since the date of above said mortgage, Thimmaiah was in possession and enjoyment of the property till his death. Subsequent to death of Thimmaiah, his legal heirs and legal heirs of his brother viz. Govindappa sold the schedule properties to one H.Shamiulla under Registered Sale Deed, dated 08.10.2007 vide Document No.7478/2007. Subsequently, H.Shamiulla sold the suit schedule properties to the petitioners herein/plaintiffs under Registered Sale Deed, dated 25.02.2008 vide Document No.1133/2008. The petitioners took the Registered Sale Deed, dated 25.02.2008 along with one K.Thippamma of Kodigenahalli village. Though, K.Thippamma had no right over any portion of the suit schedule properties, she disputed that she was also having right over the schedule properties. As such, she was styled as an executant along with H.Shamiulla, in order to avoid future complications from her. After purchasing the schedule properties by the petitioners, they filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Parigi for transfer of pattadar pass book and title deed in their favour, but respondent No.1 herein/D1, who is stranger to the schedule properties, objected for transfer of pattadar and title deed pass books, claimed ownership over the schedule properties. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein/D2 and D3 are the followers of respondent No.1 herein/D1 and they demanded the petitioners to sell the schedule properties and when the petitioners refused to do so, the respondents openly proclaimed in the area that they would create documents over the schedule properties and trespass into the schedule properties, high-handedly. Hence, the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.9 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the plea of D2 and D3 in O.S.No.9 of 2015 is that there was no mortgage. Defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.200 of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur against the petitioners herein/plaintiffs and others, arraying them as defendant Nos.12 and 13, though he has no right, title or possession over the property and the said suit was got dismissed once for all, by the defendant No.1 herein, who is plaintiff therein. The dismissal order in O.S.No.200 of 2010 operates as res judicata. The facts described above, were not brought on record to prove the illegal acts of the respondents herein/defendants. The uninterrupted possession of the mortgagee Thimmaiah and his legal heirs is required to be brought on record to settle the legal dispute. The Mortgage Deed, dated 19.07.1928 bestowed possession of the property in the mortgagee Thimmaiah which was not obtained back for decades and for generations. These facts are necessary to be incorporated in the plaint to prove the petitioners/plaintiffs’ case by way of amending the plaint. But, without considering these aspects in right perspective, the trial Court dismissed the amendment petition. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

4. It is the case of the respondents herein/defendants before the trial Court that the proposed amendments are already discussed and it is nothing but new pleadings and the same wi