THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2491 OF 2025

ORDER

Assailing the propriety of the decree and order dated

12.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 152 of 2025 in O.S. No. 86 of 2011 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

2. The revision petitioners, who are also the plaintiffs in the suit, filed I.A. No. 152 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint.

3. Heard Mr. P. Rajagopal Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and M/s. C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents.

4.1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondent/defendant originally instituted O.S. No. 886 of 2011 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, namely, dry land admeasuring Ac. 5.00 guntas in Survey No. 858/D, situated at Keshavapatnam Village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’). During the stage of cross- examination of P.W.1, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint, praying for inclusion of an additional relief of declaration of title over the subject land, together with recovery of vacant possession.

4.2. The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and the nature of the amendment sought, held that the proposed amendment was essential to facilitate effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties and to obviate the risk of conflicting decisions. Consequently, the Court allowed the application for amendment. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants/respondents have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

5.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contends that the trial Court committed a serious error in permitting amendment of the plaint after an inordinate lapse of 14 years, without appreciating that the relief of declaration of title had long since become barred by limitation. It is urged that, as per settled principles of law, amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial ought not to be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates due diligence, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. Counsel further submits that the plea of the plaintiffs/respondents, namely, that they became aware of the alleged occupation of the subject land by the defendants/revision petitioners only at a later stage, is wholly untenable. This is because the written statement filed as early as 2011 explicitly disclosed the defendants’ claim of title and possession over the subject land. Despite such knowledge, the plaintiffs remained silent for nearly 14 years and sought amendment only in 2025, long after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. It is therefore argued that rights which accrued in favour of the revision petitioners over the intervening period would be seriously prejudiced by allowing the amendment. 5.2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L.C. Hanumanthappa (since deceased) by L.Rs. v. H.B. Shivakumar, (2016) 1 SCC 332, wherein it was held that an amendment introducing a relief that is already barred by limitation as on the date of the application is impermissible. On these grounds, intervention of this Court is sought.

6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that at the time of institution of the original suit, and until discovery of the defendants’ illegal occupation of the subject land, a prayer for perpetual injunction was adequate. However, upon subsequently becoming aware of the defendants’ possession over the subject land, it became necessary to seek comprehensive relief by way of declaration of title, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction. It is argued that the amendment was occasioned by changed circumstances and was filed immediately upon discovery of the relevant fac