ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2023 in I.A.No.319 of 2023 in O.S.No.8 of 2012 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir, whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

4. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are defendants in the suit.

5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.8 of 2012 on the file of I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir for cancellation of registered agreement of sale cum-GPA bearing document No.390 of 2009 dated 21.01.2009, which was said to have been executed by the defendant No.1, on behalf of the company, in favour of the defendant No.2. In the said suit interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.292 of 2012 restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property. In spite of there being interim injunction order, the defendant No.2 transferred the suit schedule property in favour of her daughter and grand-daughter, defendants 3 and 4, through registered document Nos.9814 and 9815 of 2019 dated 12.07.2019 and later the defendant No.2 died on 13.11.2020 and the said transactions are hit by 52-A of Transfer of Property Act and therefore if the said documents are not cancelled and remains in the public domain it would give scope to play mischief and therefore it being a consequential document to AGPA, which was sought to be cancelled as main relief, it is necessary to amend the plaint and the petitioner filed I.A.No.319 of 2023 in O.S.No.8 of 2012 for amendment of plaint. In the said petition the defendant No.3 filed counter. The Court below after hearing both sides dismissed the petition stating that the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to show sufficient grounds to amend the plaint and dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order passed by the Court below is illegal, contrary to law and facts and the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no bar to allow the petition even after commencement of trial and it can be allowed even at the stage of appeal. The amendment sought by the petitioner, more precisely to declare the registered sale deed and registered gift settlement deeds as null and void and not binding on the petitioner, except that no substantial amendment is sought for, the amendment sought for is to avoid further transferring the property to third parties it leads to multiplicity of litigation. The Court below had given utmost importance to the technicalities rather to do justice to the parties. The Court below failed to see that the subsequent events that took place during the pendency of the suit, transferring the suit property and the subsequent events are necessary to determine the real questions and the controversy involved in the lis among the parties, which the court below ignored and dismissed the petition and requested to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the following Judgments:

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builds Private Limited and others 1 1 2022 AIR (SC) 4256 2. Boya Pikkili Pedda Venkataswamy Vs. Boya Ramakrishnudu 2

8. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents submit that the amendment sought in the petition is not