THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.409 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated

21.01.2015 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, at Thorrur, (for short, trial Court) in I.A.No.693 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2010. The revision

petitioner is the plaintiff before the trial Court.

2. The facts of the case, so far as relevant for the purpose of deciding this revision petition, are that the plaintiff filed the Suit in the year 2010 seeking permanent injunction in respect of the property i.e., H.No.7-31 (264 square yards), situate at Narsimhulapet village and mandal, Warangal District (suit schedule property) and, along with the Suit, he has also filed I.A.No.43 of 2010 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction; however, as he could not prove prima facie possession over the suit schedule property, the said Application I.A.No.43 of 2010 was dismissed on merits on 29.11.2010. Thereafter, in the year 2012, the plaintiff filed a petition i.e., I.A.No.367 of 2012 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of plaint from “permanent injunction” to “declaration of title and recovery of possession”, and the petition was allowed on merits on 07.11.2013. While so, now the plaintiff filed a petition, i.e., I.A.No.693 of 2024 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of first three lines of paragraph No.4 of the plaint – particularly the year 2001 as 1994 by making the following amendment,

which reads as follows:

“The Defendants are no way concerned with the suit land. The Plaintiff is in possession over the suit land since its purchase in the year 1994,

no one objected for his possession much less the Defendants”

3. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties and perusing the record, dismissed the application by observing that in the year 2012 the plaint was earlier permitted to be amended from permanent injunction to declaration of title and recovery of possession by taking a lenient view for proper adjudication of the matter; and that it shows the petitioner has knowledge that he was not in possession over the suit schedule property, and after 11 years of amendment of suit, the plaintiff filed the present application seeking permission to again amend the plaint by stating that he has been in adverse possession of the suit schedule property since 1994. It was further observed by the trial Court that if the version of the plaintiff with regard to adverse possession is believed to be true, why he filed the earlier petition for amendment from permanent injunction to declaration of title and recovery of possession, and that if the present amendment is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit into relief of adverse possession, when the suit was initially for the relief of bare injunction and subsequently amended to declaration of title and recovery of possession;

and the trial Court accordingly dismissed the application.

4. Heard Mr. C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff; and Mr. D.V. chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No.3. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the trial Court misconceived that the petitioner admitted in the petition I.A.No.367 of 2012 that he is not in possession of the suit schedule property and sought for amendment of the suit to that of declaration of title and recovery of possession instead of injunction simplicitor; that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the amended fair copy of the plaint was filed on 21.11.2013 wherein para 7(A) was added specifically mentioning that “the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under simple sale deed, dated 20.04.1994 from the 1^st defendant for consideration of Rs.15,000/- which was paid in lumpsum…..”; that the factum of purchase of property is already on record as on 20.04.1994; that the suit can never be for the relief of adverse possession but the adverse possession would be