HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.927 of 2025

ORDER

This Revision is filed aggrieved by order dated 28.02.2025 in IA.No.482 of 2024 in OS.No.167 of 2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondent herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed.

2. Heard Sri Shyam S.Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioners and Dr. Kadiri Krishna, learned counsel for respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that initially, respondent filed a suit in OS.No.24 of 2012 before the Junior Civil Judge, Thungathurthy, for injunction in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.13 guntas in Sy.No.474 (474/A), Vardhamankota Village, Arvapally Mandal, Nalgonda District; that subsequently, the same was transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet and re-numbered as OS.No.167 of 2016; that the petitioners entered appearance and filed written statement, issues were framed and trial commenced and at that stage, the respondent filed an application vide IA.No.482 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by deleting the extent of suit schedule property of Acs.4.30 guntas in Sy.No.474/A and to substitute the same as ‘Acs.2.33 guntas in Sy.No.474A/1/2”; and that the petitioners herein filed counter resisting the said application.

4, In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the respondent/plaintiff averred that while verifying the facts of the case, her counsel has noticed that part of the suit schedule property which was acquired by the Government was not deleted from the suit schedule, which is a subsequent development and thus, she was constrained to file an application for amendment.

5. The trial Court vide impugned order allowed the application with an observation that suit is filed for perpetual injunction and whether the defendants have interfered with the suit schedule property can only be proved by leading convincing evidence during trial and that no prejudice will be caused to the other side if the suit schedule property is amended as it does not amount to alteration of basic structure of the suit. Challenging the said order, the present Revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondent herein/plaintiff, documents were marked and cross-examination of the said witnesses was also closed in the suit in the year 2014 by the Court where the suit was originally instituted, i.e., Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Thungathurthy, however, it was set aside on an application; and that subsequently, it was transferred to Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet; and that, after a lapse of 12 years from the date of filing of the suit, the respondent came up with an application for amendment of the suit schedule property in the year 2024 on the ground that part of the suit schedule property was acquired by SRSP canal and also for laying of Jangaon to Suryapet road and thus, the left over land is only an extent of Acs.2.33 guntas, which amounts to completely changing the nature of the suit and thus, the same is impermissible. Learned counsel further submitted that the land was acquired by the Government for SRSP canal way back in the year 2007 and notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 16.07.2007, thus, the land was acquired even before filing of the suit. Therefore, the contention of the respondent herein/plaintiff that she was in possession of Acs.4.30 gutnas and she has been cultivating the said land and that the revision petitioners herein were interfering with her possession are factually incorrect.

6.1. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the respondent herein except stating that while verifying the case facts, her counsel came to know that a part of land was not deleted from the suit schedule property and the same was acquired by the Government for SRSP canal and for laying o