THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3443 of 2025

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, in I.A.No.05 of 2025 in O.S.No.71 of 2025, wherein the learned Judge allowed I.A.No.05 of 2025 filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint at paragraph No.2 and the valuation of the suit.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition, briefly stated are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.71 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 for grant of ad-interim injunction, invoking Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC read with Section 151 of the CPC. The defendants specifically raised an objection that the suit filed by the plaintiff before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, is not maintainable under law, and the suit ought to be adjudicated by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, on the ground that the plaint was valued at Rs.10,000/-, and therefore the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. At that stage, plaintiff filed I.A.No.05 of 2025 seeking amendment of the plaint, particularly to enhance the valuation of the suit from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.10,10,000/- and to amend paragraph No.2 of the plaint by incorporating the plea that during the lifetime of the plaintiff’s father, he executed a will deed dated 09.01.2018, and he died on 30.05.2018. By virtue of the will deed, the plaintiff succeeded the suit schedule property. In the said application, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 filed a counter denying the averments and contending inter alia that the proposed amendment is not permissible in law, as it would change the entire nature and character of the suit. He further submitted that at no point of time in the earlier proceedings the plaintiff had pleaded the existence of the will deed said to have been executed by his father, and the relief sought in the suit is simple perpetual injunction and the validity of will deed cannot be adjudicated in such proceedings. Inspite of the same, the learned Judge allowed the application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard Mr.N.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.Mohan Sai Baba, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the nature of the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, seeking amendment of the suit valuation and inclusion of the will deed, would completely change the character of the suit, and the same is not permissible under law. He further submitted that the the plaintiff is not entitled to enhance the suit value from Rs.10,000/- only for the purpose of adjudication of suit by particular Court, as a party cannot choose the forum by seeking amendment of the suit valuation.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submitted that respondent No.1/plaintiff may be granted liberty to raise all the pleas which are available to him before the concerned Court, and the suit may be transferred to the Junior Civil Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, as the same falls within its jurisdiction.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed O.S.No.71 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. After perusal of the