HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1098 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Mr. Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gummala Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in I.A.No.237 of 2024 in O.S. No.1193 of 2022 allowing the application filed by the respondent herein under Order - VI, Rule -

17 of CPC to amend the plaint.

3. The petitioner herein is defendant in the aforesaid suit, while the respondent is plaintiff. The respondent filed the suit against the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring 363 square yards in Survey No.829, situated at Chenjarla Village of Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit schedule property’). When the said suit is coming up for settlement, the respondent filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.237 of 2024 under Order - VI, Rule - 17 of CPC to amend the plaint contending as follows:

i. He filed the subject suit for perpetual injunction.

ii. The same is coming up for settlement.

iii. After filing the subject suit, the petitioner herein claimed that plaintiff’s earlier suit filed for perpetual injunction vide O.S. No.233 of 2013 was dismissed and denied his right over the suit schedule property.

iv. However, his previous counsel informed him that his earlier suit was decided in his favour and that the family members of the petitioner admitted his title and possession over the suit schedule property.

v. The petitioner’s property was acquired by the Government for the purpose of widening of National Highway and she was paid the compensation.

vi. Even then, the petitioner is trying to enter into the property of the respondent illegally by denying his title.

vii. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the plaint seeking the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in place of perpetual injunction.

4. Whereas, the petitioner herein filed counter opposing the claim made by the respondent herein contending as follows:

i. Earlier suit in O.S. No.233 of 2013 filed by the respondent for perpetual injunction was dismissed on 06.11.2017 holding that the respondent did not describe the boundaries properly and that he failed to establish his title.

ii. The respondent herein filed the subject suit with the very same allegations.

iii. The respondent herein did not file any document to prove his title over the suit schedule property.

iv. The boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property and the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed bearing document No.5646 of 2012 of the respondent are different.

v. Previously the vendor of the petitioner herein filed a suit vide O.S. No.456 of 2002 in respect of the land in Sy.No.829, admeasuring 345 square yards of the same Village before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar against the defendants therein for perpetual injunction and the said suit was decreed in favour of the Vendor of the petitioner herein.

vi. The petitioner herein purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0.05 guntas in Survey No.829 from Muddasani Eshwaraiah through a simple sale deed in the year 1982, out of which, the petitioner sold Ac.0.02 guntas to one Mr. Bairi Ramulu and for the balance of Ac.0.03 guntas, the petitioner herein obtained a registered sale deed bearing document No.40 of 2001, dated

03.01.2001.

vii. The petitioner herein constructed a house in the said land after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the petitioner herein became absolute owner, possessor and enjoyment of the suit land.

5. On hearing both sides, vide order dated 31.01.2025, learned trial Court allowed the said application holding that the trial in the suit is not yet commenced, though basic structure of suit is going to be altered with the proposed amendment. In order to avoid future litigation, and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner her