Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2246 of 2024
Along with CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1419 of 2025
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2246/2024
Between:
1. LAKKARAJA MUNIRATHNAM, S/O L.C. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS,
2. LAKKARAJA LAKSHMI, W/O L.MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS,
3. LAKKARAJA MADHAVI, D/O L. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS,
4. LAKKARAJA GEETHANJALI, D/O L. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT36 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS,
PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT DWARAKA, PLOT NO.12, GHATIA VILLAGE ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI, 400071
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. K PRABHAKAR REDDY, S/O K.JAYARAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS,
2. J SRINIVASA PRABAHAKAR, S/O J.G.D. MOORTHY AGED ABOUT52 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS,
3. T CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O SATHYAMOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS,
4. A SRINIVASA RAO, S/O A.S.RARNAMOORTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS,
5. J RAMA SUBRAMANYAM, S/O J.G.D MOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS,
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT 15TH WARD, KARNALA VEEDHI @ NETHAJI ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S)
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 beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Docket Order dt 29-08-2024 made in O.S.No. 132 of 2016 on the file of the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District
IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be please to Suspend Docket Order dt.29-08-2024 in O.S.No. 132 of 2016 on the file of X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District pending disposal of the main 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 may be pleased to extend the interim Orders in I.A.No. 01 of 2024 in CRP.No. 2246 of 2024 which were initially granted on 07.03.2025 and further extended the order until further orders and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. O UDAYA KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR
2. CHILUKURI KARTHIK
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1419/2025
Between:
1. K PRABHAKAR REDDY, S/O K JAYARAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. 15 WARD, KARNALA VEEDHI @ NETHAJI ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. LAKKARAJA MUNIRATHNAM, S/O L.C. NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O DWARAKA, PLOT NO. 12, GHATIA VILLAGE ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI, 400071.
2. LAKKARAJA LAKSHMI, W/O L.MUNIRATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O DWARAKA, PLOT NO. 12, GHATIA VILLAGE ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI, 400071.
3. LAKKARAJA MADHAVI, D/O L. MUNIRATHNAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O DWARAKA, PLOT NO. 12, GHATIA VILLAGE ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI, 400071.
4. LAKKARAJA GEETHANJALI, D/O L. MUNIRATHNAM, AGED ABOUT36 YEARS R/O DWARAKA, PLOT NO. 12, GHATIA VILLAGE ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI, 400071.
5. J SRINIVASA PRABAHAKAR, S/O J.G D. MOORTHY, AGED ABOUT52 YEARS, R/O 15 WARD, KARNALA VEEDHI @ NETHAJI ROAD TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.
6. T CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O SATHYAMOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O 15 WARD, KARNALA VEEDHI @ NETHAJI ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.
7. A SRINIVASA RAO, S/O A.S.RARNAMOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O 15TH WARD, KARNALA VEEDHI @ NETHAJI ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.
8. J RAMA SUBRAMANYAM, S/O J.G.D MOORTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 15TH WARD, KARNALA VEEDHI @ NETHAJI ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S)
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 Petitioner begs to present this Civil Revision Petition against order dated 19.09.2022 in I.A. No. 113 of 2022 in O.S. No. 132 of 2016 on the file of X Additional District Judge, Tirupati
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SAI AKASH N
RESERVED ON 17.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON 12.03.2026
UPLOADED ON 12.03.2026.
___________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
12th March, 2026
COMMON ORDER:
1. CRP No.2246 of 2024 is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the docket order dated 29.08.2024 passed in O.S.No.132 of 2016 by the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, by the plaintiffs therein.
2. CRP No.1419 of 2025 is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the docket order dated 19.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.113 of 2022 in O.S.No.132 of 2016 by the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, by the first respondent/first defendant.
3. For sake of convenience, the parties, hereinafter will be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
4. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision Petitions, in brief, are that:
The plaintiffs filed the suit vide O.S.No.132 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati directing the defendants to pay the suit amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/- to them towards damagers for illegal use and occupation of the schedule mentioned premises after expiry of the lease period. They filed a petition vide I.A.No.113 of 2022 in the said suit under Order-6, Rule-17 CPC for amendment of the plaint for including the relief “directing the defendants to pay the damages at the rate of Rs.12,96,000/- per month for unlawful use and occupation of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs till the defendants vacate the plaint schedule property”.
5. The said petition was resisted by defendant nos.3 and 4 by filing counters contending that the plaintiffs have paid court fee only for 12 months, but not till the time of eviction and that too the petition was filed at a belated stage when the matter is coming up for further evidence and further the petition is barred by limitation.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge, placing reliance on the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Privarte Limited and another, 1. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Sudera Realty Private Limited, 2. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1161 and Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Miscellanous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No.3 of 2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 10.01.2022, allowed the petition and the question as to which part of the claim is within limitation and which part is without limitation is left open to be decided after due trial by framing an appropriate issue.
7. The said orders have been assailed by the defendant no.1 by filing C.R.P.No.1419 of 2025.
8. Thereafter, the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, vide docket order dated 29.08.2024 directed the plaintiffs to pay additional court fee for claim of damages. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred CRP No.2246 of 2024.
9. Inasmuch as, the issue covered under both the CRPs is interconnected and the decision on one will have bearing on the other, both of them are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
10. Heard Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for defendants and Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel, representing Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
11. Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for defendants, in elaboration to the contents of the counter filed in the amendment petition filed before the trial Court would contend that that the amendment petition claiming amendment of relief having been filed after commencement of trial is not maintainable in view of amendment made to Order-VI, Rule-17 of Code of Civil Procedure. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge erroneously allowed the amendment petition despite the fact that the plaintiffs did not plead that despite of exercise of due diligence, they could not make the amendment earlier. He would further contend that claiming damages till the date of eviction of the plaint schedule property is
