COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr. Vijay B.Paropakari, learned counsel for the petitioners;

and Mr. V.V.M. Chary, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Since the issue involved in the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same and the parties also being the same, they are taken up hearing together and are decided by this Common Order.

3. These are four Civil Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the common order dated 18.12.2025, in I.A.Nos.552 to 555 of 2025 in O.S.No.1134 of 2016, passed by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. Vide the impugned common order; the Trial Court dismissed all the aforesaid four I.As. filed by the petitioners.

5. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.261 of 2016 are discussed hereunder.

6. The facts of the case are that the petitioners herein filed a suit O.S.No.1134 of 2016 before the Trial Court seeking for recovery of possession of one room and also for a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the alleged encroachment over an extent of 13 square yards of land abutting the said room. During the course of proceedings and in view of the respondent impliedly admitted the petitioners’ title and possession over the room, the Trial Court orally permitted the petitioners to take hold possession of the room and the dispute effectively remained confined to the alleged encroached extend of 13 square yards for which mandatory injunction was sought.

7. The respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the petitioners’ assertion of encroachment. Thereafter, the Trial Court appointed and Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.92 of 2017 and pursuant to the warrant executed after notice to both sides and in the presence of the parties and counsel, the Advocate Commissioner reported that the respondent had encroached an extent of 11.03 square yards. However, the respondent neither filed objections to the Advocate Commissioner’s report nor took steps to summon the Advocate Commissioner for cross-examination on the aspect of encroachment and the petitioners contend that such conduct amounts to implied acceptance of the Advocate Commissioner’s findings.

8. When the suit reached the stage of arguments, the petitioners were advised to clarify the boundaries of the alleged encroached portion to avoid any executability issues. Accordingly, they filed a map corresponding to the proposed boundaries and moved four interlocutory applications, namely I.A.No.552 of 2025 (Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC), I.A.No.553 of 2025 (Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC), I.A.No.554 of 2025 (Order VI Rule 17 CPC) and I.A.No.555 of 2025 (Section 151 CPC to reopen). The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order 18.12.2025, passed in I.A.No.554 of 2025, whereby the Trial Court rejected the petitioners’ request to reopen the case to facilitate amendment by specifying the boundaries of the alleged encroachment to the extent of 13 square yards to file a map corresponding to the boundaries proposed to be added by way of amendment, and to mark the said documents, which, according to the petitioners was essential to make the eventual decree executable and to advance substantial justice.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.554 of 2025 is contrary to law and the merits of the case. It is submitted that the amendment sought under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was only to specify the boundaries of the unexecuted portion relating to the alleged encroached area, which is clarificatory and innocuous in nature. According to learned counsel, such amendment neither changes the nature of the suit nor introduces a new cause of action, and causes no prejudice to the respondent, but is necessary to properly identify the subject property and to ensure that any decree passed is not rendered in-executable for want of boundary description.

10. It is further submi