THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.516 of 2025

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 31.12.2024, in I.A.No.428 of 2024 in O.S.No.771 of 2012, passed by the X Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Mr. S. Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the petition filed by the respondents herein under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) and Section 28 of Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 151 of CPC for carrying out amendments to the plaint.

4. The respondents have initially filed a suit for declaration of agreement of sale to be null and void, but the amendment sought for was cancellation of the sale deed executed subsequent to the filing of the Suit and to declare the respondents as absolute owners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners took the Court through certain pleadings in the affidavit that have been in the petition Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and Section 28 of Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 151 of CPC saying that there is conflicting and contradictory stand taken by the respondents while seeking for amendment and that the respondents have not disclosed the actual reason why it took so long for them to move the amendment petition.

6. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amendment at this belated stage when the trial itself has been concluded could not have been permitted by the Trial Court.

7. However, upon perusal of the entire pleadings and records what is undisputed is the fact that the petitioners herein are subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule property having purchased in the year 2016 through a registered sale deed. It is this which was challenged by the respondents by way of amendment petition and also cancellation of the same. True it is that there is some inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in moving the said petition and there does not seem to be sufficient cause explained so far as the delay is concerned. Nonetheless, undisputedly there has been transaction subsequent to the filing of the suit and the respondents now have only sought for amendment of the suit to the aforesaid extent and cancellation of the said sale deed in addition to the original prayer sought for.

8. This Court in the factual backdrop of the case, does not find any strong case made out by the petitioners calling for an interference to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court vide order dated 31.12.2024. The Civil Revision Petition accordingly stands rejected. The resultant amendment being allowed, the Trial Court would have to take appropriate steps granting suitable opportunity to the petitioners herein and others also to take consequential steps in terms of the amendment that has been allowed. Nonetheless, since the suit itself is of the year 2012, this Court hereby directs the Trial Court to consider the seniority of the suit being more than 13 years old be taken up on priority basis and to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

_______________

P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 21.02.2025 GSD