Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18042
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
2026:APHC:17870
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2051/2023
Between:
1. D atla Srinivasa Raju, S/o D.V.P. Raju, aged about 54 years, Business, R/o. Flat no.104, Rajitha Apartment, Rajiv nagar, Hyderabad.
2. U addaraju Venkata Satya Surya Subrahmanyam Raju, S/o Satyanarayana Raju, Aged 53 years, Business, R/o. Narasimhapuram village, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. M /s Gayathri Marine Products Private Limited, rep. By its managing director, D.K.Annapoorna, W/o Siva Rama Raju, aged 70 years, Business, R/o.plot no.1242/b, Road no.62, Jublee hills, Hyderabad.
2. D .Seetharama Raju, S/o Venkata Raju, Aged About 54 Years, Business, R/o.Cherukumilli Village, Akivedu Mandal, West Godavari District.
3. M Rama Krishna, S/o Achiah, aged 52 years, Business, R/o.P.H.B. Colony, HIG-15, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District (Respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to the present proceedings)
...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 set aside order dated 03-08-2023 in I.A.No.256/2023 in O.S.No.31/2017 on the file of the Court of the X Addl. District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District consequently allow I.A.No.256/2023 in O.S.No.31/2017 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 an order of Stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.31/2017 on the file of the Court of the X Addl. District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District pending disposal of main Revision Petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M RADHAKRISHNA
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
The Court made the following order:
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order 03.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.256 of 2023 in O.S.No.31/2017 by the learned X Addl. District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
2. The facts that led to filing of this revision are hereunder:
The respondents are the plaintiffs and the petitioners are the defendants. The respondents filed suit vide O.S.No.31/2017 for eviction of the petitioners herein from the plaint schedule property, for damages and for recovery of arrears. In the said suit, the defendants filed I.A.No.256/2023 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amending the written statement by adding Para 14(a) which is specifically mentioned in the petition. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs by way of a counter. After hearing the parties, the court below has dismissed the said application under its order dated 03.08.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition came to be filed.
3. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of the revision and the contents of the affidavit filed before the court below contended that, the petitioners/defendants entered into lease agreement with the plaintiffs and doing prawn culture and in order to evict the petitioners, the respondents have filed a suit for eviction wherein the petitioners have also filed written statement. He further submitted that, the petitioners/defendants have changed their counsel for various reasons and the present counsel has noticed that instead of approaching the Tribunal under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, the plaintiffs have filed the suit and the said contention was not pleaded in the written statement filed by the petitioners herein, which is very much essential for defending their case in the suit. He further submitted that, in LIC Vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and anr, 2026:APHC:1787012022 INSC 894 the Apex court held that inconsistent pleas can be taken in the pleadings. He further submitted that, though the petitioners have pleaded due diligence with regard to changing of the counsels in not filing the application earlier, the court below did not take into consideration the said fact. He further submitted that, the court below has failed to notice that by virtue of the said amendment, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents and they can as well file a rejoinder or can lead further evidence in that regard. He further submitted that, without considering the said aspects and without seeing the purport of Order VI rule 17 in a right perspective, the court below has erroneously dismissed the application causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioners. In support of his contentions, he also relied on the judgment rendered in Baldev Singh & others Vs Manohar Singh & another, (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498 and accordingly prayed to allow the revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, before filing the suit, a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was issued (which is the basis for filing the suit) and in the said suit, the petitioners did not take any such defense that the suit is not maintainable and that the plaintiffs have to approach the Tribunal by virtue of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. He further submitted that, after conclusion of the plaintiffs evidence, petitioner came up with amendment in written statement withdrawing the earlier stand taken in the original written statement. If such amendment is allowed, it not only causes prejudice to the plaintiffs but also amounts to miscarriage of justice wherein the petitioners/defendants are allowed to withdraw their earlier stand. He further submitted that, in Su
