Heard Mr. Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Gummala Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the
2. The present revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
Karimnagar in I.A.No.237 of 2024 in O.S. No.1193 of 2022 allowing
3. The petitioner herein is defendant in the aforesaid suit, while
the respondent is plaintiff. The respondent filed the suit against the
'suit schedule property'). When the said suit is coming up for
settlement, the respondent filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A.
4. Whereas, the petitioner herein filed counter opposing the
claim made by the respondent herein contending as follows:
KL,J
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
KL,J
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
herein, the request of the respondent herein can be considered.
6. Challenging the said order, dated 31.01.2025, the petitioner
herein - defendant filed the present revision contending that the
proposed amendment is nothing but an abuse of process of law; that
there is limitation for seeking relief of declaration and in the present
suit, such limitation starts from the date of filing written statement in
O.S. No.233 of 2013. Therefore, such relief is totally time barred.
KL,J
Without considering the said aspects, the trial Court erred in allowing
the amendment petition.
7. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff
would contend that the plaintiff is seeking to amend the plaint for the
relief of declaration of title, and by allowing such amendment, though
there would be change of nature of suit, no prejudice would be caused
to the petitioner - defendant. On consideration of the said aspects
only, vide impugned order dated 31.01.2025, the trial Court allowed
the said I.A. No.237 of 2024. There is no error in it. With the said
submissions, he sought to dismiss the present revision.
8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to note
that the respondent - plaintiff is claiming that he is the absolute owner
and possessor of the land admeasuring 363 square yards in Sy.No.829,
situated at Chenjarla Village of Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar
District, on the strength of registered sale deed document No.5646 of
2012, dated 16.08.2012 executed by Muddasani Eshwaraiah. In the
said sale deed, boundaries are mentioned as follows:
East: Land belongs to Vendor
West: PWD Road
North: Land belongs to Morapally Yellareddy
South: Land belongs to B. Laxmirajam
KL,J
9. The respondent herein - plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.
No.233 of 2013 against the petitioner herein - defendant and 2 others
including the said Bollabathula Laxmirajam for perpetual injunction in
respect of the very same property. In the said suit, the trial Court
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff has described the plaint schedule mentioned
property with proper boundaries?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction?
10. Vide judgment dated 06.11.2017, learned II Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, dismissed the said suit holding that
the respondent herein - plaintiff failed to describe the plaint schedule
property with proper boundaries, there would be no question of
interference by the defendants therein with the possession of the
plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Moreover, the defendant
therein could establish his possession and title over some other
property with the help of Exs.B1 to B.14 and from the evidence of
DWs.1 to 4. The trial Court further held that Ex.B1 - original
registered sale deed bearing document No.40 of 2001, dated
03.01.2001 contains a site plan, and it shows that the land of
defendants therein is in triangular shape as mentioned in the registered
sale deed, as such, the boundary on western side is shown in the
KL,J
registered sale deed and site plan as (lopinchindi) which means there
is no boundary at all to the land purchased by the defendants on its
west side. Therefore, from the said finding arrived at by comparison
of both sale deeds, an inference could easily be drawn that though
both the registered sale deeds refer the same Survey No.829, the total
extent and the boundaries in each document are different. However,
Ex.B1 is superior in time than Ex.A1 i.e., it was executed in the year
2001 and its genuineness need not be doubted as the suit filed by the
vendor of the defendant for perpetual injunction vide O.S. No.456 of
2002 was also decreed (Exs.B2 and B3) by learned Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Thus, with the help of Exs.B1 to B14 and
oral evidence of DWs.2 to 4, the defendants therein clinchingly
established their title and possession over the land to an extent of 345
square yards in Survey No.829. Thus, the plaintiff has described the
plaint schedule property without proper boundaries. With the said
findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent -
plaintiff in O.S. NO.233 of 2013 on 06.11.2017.
11. Thus, the said findings would reveal that there is cloud over
the title of the respondent - plaintiff including boundaries. The
respondent - plaintiff did not prefer any appeal challenging the said
KL,J
judgment and decree dated 06.11.2017 in O.S. No.233 of 2013. It
attained finality.
12. Even then, the respondent - plaintiff had filed the subject
suit i.e., O.S. No.1193 of 2022 against the petitioner herein -
defendant for perpetual injunction. In the entire plaint, there is no
mention about the dismissal of earlier suit filed by him in O.S. No.233
of 2013. He has filed the present suit simply and vaguely mentioning
the cause of action as 08.09.2022.
13. As discussed above, the said suit in O.S. No.233 of 2013
filed by the respondent - plaintiff was dismissed on 06.11.2017,
whereas he has filed the subject suit only in September, 2022 simply
mentioning the cause of action as 08.09.2022 seeking perpetual
injunction basing on the very same sale deed mentioning the very
same boundaries. Therefore, the present suit is hit by res judicata.
However, it is for the trial Court to decide the said aspect on the
application filed by the petitioner - defendant.
14. It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein - defendant
had filed written statement in the subject suit i.e., O.S. No.1193 of
2022 on 19.10.2022 stating that the respondent - plaintiff filed a suit
earlier i.e., O.S. No.233 of 2013 seeking for perpetual injunction and
KL,J
dismissal of the same on 06.11.2017. Even then, the respondent
herein - plaintiff filed I.A. No.237 of 2024 only on 24.04.2024.
15. In the plaint filed in O.S. No.1193 of 2022, the respondent
herein - plaintiff failed to mention about the earlier suit O.S. No.233
of 2013 and dismissal of the same. Thus, there is suppression of fact
i.e., filing of earlier suit and its dismissal by the respondent - plaintiff.
He has filed the aforesaid I.A. No.237 of 2024 seeking amendment of
plaint contending that the petitioner denied his title in earlier suit in
O.S. No.233 of 2013. Her property was acquired by the Government
for the purpose of widening of National Highway. She has received
compensation from the Government and now she is trying to interfere
with his property denying his title. Therefore, he sought amendment
of plaint.
16. There is no quarrel with regard to the legal position that
amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit. The dominant
purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation and
to decide the real controversy. Referring to various judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court in Oruganti Ramulu v. P.
KL,J
Ravindar Goud1 held amendment to the pleadings should be allowed
liberally when the proposed amendment is necessary for determination
of real question in controversy between the parties. This Court held as
follows:
"Amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit.
Dominant purpose of allowing amendment is to minimize
litigation and to decide real controversy. In the present
case, there are two options to plaintiff (i) filing of fresh suit
seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction and (ii)
seeking amendments amending the plaint from perpetual
injunction to declaration of title. When filing of fresh suit
is permissible, it is equally permissible to seek amendment
of the plaint as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2022 (6)
ALD 63 (SC) (Para 26)."
17. In Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu 2, the Apex Court held
as under:
"15. We reiterate that all amendments which are necessary
for the purpose of determining the real questions in
controversy between the parties should be allowed if it does
not change the basic nature of the suit. A change in the
nature of relief claimed shall not be considered as a change
in the nature of suit and the power of amendment should be
. 2023 (3) ALD 171 (TS)
. 2012 (5) CTC 803
KL,J
exercised in the larger interests of doing full and complete
justice between the parties."
18. In State of West Bengal v. Pam Developments Private
limited3, the Apex Court held that subsequent events connected to an
existing cause of action form a continuous cause of action. Therefore,
amending the plaint to include them does not require a fresh suit to be
filed. The relevant paragraph is extracted as under:
"24. For instance, the respondent has made a claim for an
amount to be paid to it by penalizing the appellants for
wrongfully issuing the first debarment order. The
subsequent debarment orders all arise as a part of the same
event and hence, its effect on the claim of the respondent, if
any, must be adjudicated together. Accordingly, we hold
that the subsequent events form a continuous cause of
action for which a fresh suit is not to be filed, as it does not
change the nature and character of the civil suit."
19. In Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal)4,
the Apex Court upheld the order of High Court allowing the
respondent to amend her plaint even after trial began to challenge the
validity of a Will, as it was essential to resolve the core property
dispute and would not prejudice the appellant. The Court emphasized
. (2025) 3 SCC 356
. 2024 INSC 726
KL,J
a liberal approach under Order - VI Rule - 17 of CPC and reiterated
that amendments are to be permitted if necessary to determine the real
controversy, provided due diligence and absence of injustice are
shown.
20. In the light of the aforesaid principle, coming to the facts of
the present case, as discussed supra, there is no dispute that the subject
suit is at pre-trial stage. It is coming for settlement of issues. The
respondent - plaintiff had filed the aforesaid interlocutory application
under Order -VI, Rule - 17 of CPC to amend the prayer in the plaint
from seeking the relief of perpetual injunction to the relief of
declaration of title and for perpetual injunction.
21. As discussed above, at the cost of repetition, the respondent
- plaintiff had suppressed earlier suit in O.S. No.233 of 2013 filed by
him against the petitioner herein and others and its dismissal on
06.11.2017 with the findings mentioned above. He has not preferred
any appeal challenging the said judgment and decree. Thus, the said
judgment and decree and the findings therein have attained finality.
He has not mentioned the said fact in the plaint filed in the subject suit
filed by him. He has disclosed the said fact only in the affidavit in
support of I.A. No.237 of 2024.
KL,J
22. As discussed above, in the judgment in O.S. No.233 of
2013, the trial Court gave specific finding that the respondent herein
failed to describe plaint schedule property with proper boundaries.
Thus, there is cloud over the title of the respondent - plaintiff.
Therefore, instead of filing the suit for declaration, he has filed the suit
for perpetual injunction, that too, suppressing the earlier suit and its
dismissal. As discussed above, in the written statement filed by the
petitioner in the subject suit, she has specifically contended about the
said facts. Even then, he has filed the present application after lapse
of two (02) years. Thus, the respondent - plaintiff did not approach
the trial Court with clean hands. Therefore, he cannot seek
amendment sought by him in the subject suit O.S. No.1193 of 2022.
23. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner - defendant would contend that the petitioner - defendant
has already filed an Interlocutory Application under Order - VII, Rule
- 11 of CPC to reject the plaint. In fact, the petitioner filed copy of the
said I.A.
24. Without considering the said aspects, vide impugned order
dated 31.01.2025, the trial Court allowed the I.A. No.237 of 2024 only
KL,J
on the ground that amendment can be allowed at any stage and in the
present case, the suit is at pre-trial stage and that there would not be
any prejudice to the petitioner herein. But, the petitioner has
specifically opposed the said application contending that the proposed
amendment is barred by limitation, that there is suppression of earlier
suit and that there would be change of nature of suit itself. She has
also specifically contended about the suit filed by her vendor in O.S.
No.456 of 2002 in respect of the land admeasuring 345 square yards
in Survey No.829 of Chenjerla Village and the same was decreed.
She has purchased Ac.0.05 guntas of land in Survey No.829 from
Muddasani Eshwaraiah under a simple sale deed in the year 1982, out
of which, she has sold Ac.0.02 guntas to one Mr. Bairi Ramulu and
for the balance of Ac.0.03 guntas, she obtained a registered sale deed
bearing document No.40 of 2001, dated 03.01.2001. She has
constructed a house in the said land after obtaining permission from
the Gram Panchayat and with the financial assistance from Indiramma
Housing Scheme. Without considering the said aspects, the trial Court
allowed the said application filed by the respondent. Therefore, the
impugned order is contrary to law and evidence on record. Thus, the
KL,J
trial Court committed jurisdictional error. Hence, the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.
25. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed
setting aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 passed by learned I
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in I.A.No.237 of 2024 in
O.S. No.1193 of 2022. I.A. No.237 of 2024 filed by the respondent
herein - plaintiff under Order - VI, Rule - 17 of CPC in O.S. No.1193
of 2022 to amend the plaint is dismissed. In the circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
the revision shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
23rd July, 2025
Mgr
