Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1083/2023
Between:
1. CHALLA VENKATA SATYA ARAVIND,, S/O SRI HARINARAYANA, HINDU, AGE- 52 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O PLOT NO. 52, IRON YARD, BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 012
2. ALAPATI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O LATE SRI SUBBA RAO, HINDU, AGE- 55 YEARS, OCC- SERVICE, R/O DOOR NO. 76-18-3D/2 BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 012
3. PAMULAPATI VENKATESWARLU,, S/O SRI SUBBA RAJU, HINDU, AGE- 58 YEARS, OCC- SEVICE, R/O DOOR NO. 7-12-10, APPALASWAMY STREET, MOHANTHY PURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520001
4. DHANRAJ SANGHVI,, S/O SRI DALICHAND, HINDU, AGE- 68 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10-19-46V, BRAHMIN STREET, KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001
5. ASHISH SANGHVI,, S/O SRI DHANRAJ, HINDU, AGE- 43 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10-19-46V, BRAHMIN STREET, KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001
6. KAVITHA SANGHVI,, W/O SRI ASHISH SANGHVI, HINDU, AGE- 41 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 10-19-46V, BRAHMIN STREET, KOTHAPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520 001
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. NUNE SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O LATE SRI PARVATHA REDDY, R/O H.NO. 220, STREET NO. 800, VTS AREA, APKU, KURNOOL - 518003
2. YAMARTHI RAVI KIRAN, S/O SRI LAKSHMI KANTHA RAO, R/O D.NO. 1-3-28/10, YEDDANAPUDIVARI STREET, VIDHYADHARAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 012
3. DEVINENI BENARJI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, R/O BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA - 520 012 (RR-2 AND 3 HEREIN ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS CRP)
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. N SIVA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MAHESH KUMAR KANCHARLA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
___________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
11.03.2026 MP
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1083 of 2023
Dated 11.03.2026 MP
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 call for the records relating to the order made in I.A.No.438 of 2019 in O.S.No.572 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 20-12-2022 and set aside the same and consequently allow the said I.A. in the interest of justice and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O S.No.572 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Ill Additional Junior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, pending disposal of the present C.R.P. and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 extend interim order granted in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.1083 of 2023 dated 26.04.2023 and extended from time to time, pending disposal of the CRP and pass such other may deem fit and proper in the order or orders as this Hon’ble Court circumstances of the case.
The Court made the following order:
Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijyawada in Interlocutory Application No.438 of 2019 in Original Suit No.572 of 2018, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows:
i) The petitioners are defendant Nos.1 to 6, respondent No.1 is plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are defendant Nos.7 and 8 in O.S.No.572 of2018.
ii) Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.572 of 2018 seeking permanent injunction along with I.A.No.422 of 2018 seeking an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property, wherein the Court granted ex parte interim injunction in his favour. However, the defendants, without caring the orders of the Court, intentionally made illegal constructions in the plaint schedule property, despite the injunction being in force. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.438 of 2019, under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice praying the Court to permit him to amend the plaint by adding a relief of Mandatory injunction for removal of illegal constructions in the property.
iii) To the said application, the respondents/defendants filed counter denying the averments made in the petition contending that even as per plaint allegations in para No.5, it is stated that ‘while the matter stood thus, the plaintiff came to know that some unauthorized constructions are being made by defendants in the plaint schedule property’. If such a case, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the alleged plaint schedule property, as such, the plaintiff ought to have sought for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, however, he has conveniently sought only a relief of permanent injunction. Therefore, the suit for permanent injunction is wrongly framed and is not maintainable. It is further contended that the plaintiff is seeking the present amendment with an intention to convert the suit for permanent injunction into one for mandatory injunction. It is significant to note that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation, as the construction has been in existence for a long time. Without seeking a declaration that the alleged property belongs to the plaintiff, he cannot seek a relief of mandatory injunction. Hence, the petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
iv) Upon hearing both sides, the Court below allowed the application on the ground that the proposed amendment does not amount to an alteration of
