Telangana High Court
M. Ram Reddy S/O Late Veera Reddy Died Per ... vs M/S Lite Crete Constructions ... on 31 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1250 of 2025
% Dated 31.07.2025
# M.Ram Reddy S/o late Veera Reddy (died per
LR's) and others.
....Petitioners
VERSUS
$ M/s. LITE Crete Constructions Industries
Private Limited, A Company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956 having its Regd. Office
at 106, Ram Nimi, 8 Mandlik Road, Mumbai
400 039, rep. by its Director Mr.Ghansham J.
Shewakaramani S/o Jamnadas, aged about 62
years, R/o 11-A, Sett Minar Apts., Peddar Road,
Bombay
M/s Srinidhi Industries, having registered office
at Kukatpally, R.R. District, rep. by its partners,
and others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu
^ Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Sri R.Rama Brahmma
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1647
2. AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4102
3. (2022) 16 SCC 1
4. 2024 LawSuit (SC) 164
5. 2003(3) ALT 612
6. (2004) 3 SCC 392
7. AIR 1957 SC 357
8. AIR 1996 SC 642
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1250 of 2025
ORDER:
This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2025
passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy,
in I.A.No.95 of 2024 in O.S.No.173 of 2017, whereby the application
filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint was
dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Venkat Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Sri R.Rama Brahmma, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
3. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the
respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.173 of 2017. For the sake
of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were
arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.173 of 2017 before the Court below.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. Plaintiff No.1-M.Ram Reddy filed suit in O.S.No.154 of 2007 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy against respondent
No.1/defendant No.1 for specific performance of agreement of sale
and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e.
Ac.3-00 of land covered by Survey Nos.833 part, 834 part, 836 part,
837 part and 838 part at Patancheru Village and Mandal,
Sangareddy District (erstwhile Medak District). In the said suit,
defendant No.1 filed written statement in the month of September,
2007, wherein it is averred that the suit schedule property along with
other properties were sold in favour of Srinidhi Industries,
represented by its partner M.S.Lokaiah, through registered sale deed
dated 11.05.2006 and the possession was also delivered. During
pendency of the suit, plaintiff No.1 died on 04.03.2020 and plaintiff
Nos.2 to 4 were came on record as his legal heirs. Defendant Nos.2
to 9 were impleaded as party respondents. Pursuant to the order
dated 20.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal District Judge,
Sangareddy, in Transfer O.P.No.53 of 2012, the above said suit was
transferred to the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Sangareddy, and renumbered as O.S.No.173 of 2017.
4.2. In the above suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.95 of 2024, seeking
amendment of the plaint as well as prayer of the suit i.e., "that the
alleged Registered Sale Deed, dated 11.05.2006 for the land to an
extent of Ac.15-415 guntas, as null and void and not binding over
the plaintiffs in any manner in respect of the suit schedule lands".
The Court below dismissed the above said application by its order
10.03.2025 on the ground of limitation, as the plaintiffs filed the
application after lapse of 12 years, though they are having knowledge
about the execution of the registered sale deed, dated 11.05.2006 by
defendant No.1 in favour of other defendants. Aggrieved by the
above said order, the plaintiffs have filed the present civil revision
petition.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs:
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that as
per the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), the Court may, at any stage
of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings.
However, the Court below without properly appreciating the
contentions raised by the plaintiffs and the provisions of Order VI
Rule 17 of CPC, erroneously dismissed the application solely on the
ground of limitation, even though the limitation is a mixed question
of fact and law and the same has to be adjudicated during the course
of trial only and not at the interlocutory stage.
5.2. He further submitted that plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit
schedule property through agreement of sale and when defendant
No.1 had failed to perform his part of contract and to execute the
registered sale deed, plaintiff No.1 had approached the Court and
filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale in respect of
Ac.3-00 of land. Defendant No.1, without informing plaintiff No.1,
alienated the property in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 9 and executed
the registered sale deed dated 11.05.2006 in respect of Ac.15-415
guntas including the suit schedule property claimed by the plaintiff.
The above said alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of other
defendants Nos.2 to 9 was not binding upon the plaintiffs.
5.3. He also submitted that the plaintiffs are not withdrawing any
admissions made in the suit or introducing new case. By virtue of
the proposed amendment, no prejudice is going to be caused to the
defendants. To avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, the proposed
amendment sought by the plaintiffs is very much maintainable
under law.
5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments;
i) Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K.Modi and
others 1;
ii) Pankaja and another v. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. and others 2;
iii) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders
Private Limited and another 3;
6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.3:
AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1647
2 AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4102
3 (2022) 16 SCC 1
6.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/defendant
No.3 submitted that defendant No.1 filed written statement in
O.S.No.154 of 2007 in September, 2007, wherein he specifically
stated that he executed the registered sale deed on 11.05.2006 in
favour of Srinidhi Industries represented by its partner, M.S.
Lokaiah, in respect of Ac.15-415 guntas, and delivered the physical
possession of the said property including the suit schedule property
claimed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of the purchasers. The plaintiffs
have got knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed
by defendant No.1 in favour of the purchasers i.e. defendant Nos.2 to
9 in the year 2007 itself. He further submitted that defendant Nos.2
to 9 have also filed written statement on 02.02.2011, wherein they
specifically stated that they had purchased the property from
defendant No.1 through registered sale deed on 11.05.2006 in
respect of Ac.15-415 guntas by paying valuable sale consideration.
In spite of the same, the plaintiffs have not taken proper steps, on
the other hand, they filed I.A.No.95 of 2024 after lapse of long period
of time. He also submitted that the application filed by the plaintiffs
seeking amendment of the plaint after commencement of the trial is
not permissible under law. Hence, the Court below has rightly
dismissed the said application.
6.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
decisions:
i) Basavaraj v. Indira and others 4;
ii) Order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.961 of 2025,
dated 04.04.2025.
Analysis:
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record including the impugned order passed by the Court below, it
reveals that initially plaintiff No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.154 of 2007 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, seeking for specific
performance of agreement of sale and for perpetual injunction
against defendant No.1 only in respect of Ac.3-00 of land.
Subsequently, the above said suit was transferred to the Court of I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, and
renumbered as O.S.No.173 of 2017. During the pendency of the said
suit, plaintiff No.1 died and his legal heirs i.e., plaintiff Nos.2 to 4
were brought on record.
8. The record further reveals that defendant No.1 filed written
statement in September, 2007, wherein he specifically averred that
he alienated the land to an extent of Ac.15.415 guntas in favour
defendant Nos.2 to 9 through registered sale deed bearing document
No.16923 of 2006 dated 11.05.2006 and received total sale
4 2024 LawSuit (SC) 164
consideration and also delivered the physical possession of the said
property in their favour and since then, they have been in exclusive
possession of the said property. Defendant Nos.2 to 9 have also filed
written statement on 02.02.2011, wherein they stated that they
purchased the property through registered sale deed dated
11.05.2006 by paying valuable sale consideration and since then
they are in physical possession. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.95 of 2024
on 28.12.2023 i.e. after lapse of long period from the date of their
knowledge of execution of registered sale deed by defendant No.1 in
favour of defendant Nos.2 to 9, seeking amendment of the plaint as
well as prayer of the suit i.e., "that the alleged Registered Sale Deed,
dated 11.05.2006 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.15-415
guntas executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2
to 9, is not binding over the plaintiffs and the same is null and void".
9. It is pertinent to mention that defendant No.1 in his written
statement at paragraph No.9 specifically averred that he alienated
the property through registered sale deed dated 11.05.2006 in favour
of Srinidhi Industries represented by its partner M.S. Lokaiah. The
above said transaction is even before institution of the suit.
Similarly, defendant Nos.2 to 9 in their written statement dated
02.02.2011, in para No.5(i), specifically averred that they had
purchased the property to an extent of Ac.15.415 guntas from
defendant No.1 through registered sale deed on 11.05.2006 by
paying valuable sale consideration and they are inducted in physical
possession. The plaintiffs have not approached the Court and filed
the application within the reasonable period and after lapse of a long
period from the date of their knowledge i.e., September 2007 and on
02.02.2011, on which date defendant Nos.1 to 9 filed written
statement. The plaintiffs have not given any reasons much less valid
reasons for non-filing the application within reasonable time,
especially the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiffs is barred
by limitation.
10. It is pertinent to mention that in Jangili Venkateswarlu and
others vs. Bandaru Omkaraiah and another 5, the Division Bench
of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, held that the
party is not entitled to seek relief of recovery of possession by way of
amendment invoking the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. By
virtue of proposed amendment the character of the suit is going to be
changed. Especially the suit was filed by the plaintiffs therein for
grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein from
interfering with the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the
defendants have taken a stand that they were in possession of the
suit schedule property pursuant to the registered document. The
plaintiffs have not taken any steps for seeking amendment of the
plaint within the stipulated time. On the other hand, filed
2003(3) ALT 612
application seeking amendment of the plaint during the pendency of
the appeal i.e. A.S.No.1469 of 1981, and the amendment sought by
the party seeking for recovery of possession was barred by limitation.
11. In T.N. Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. T.N. Electricity Board 6,
the Hon'ble Apex Court while referring the decision in L.J. Leach
and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co. 7, held that although
Courts generally decline to permit amendments where a fresh suit
based on the amended pleadings would be barred by limitation, such
bar is merely a relevant factor in the exercise of judicial discretion.
12. It is also pertinent to mention that in Muni Lal v. The
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited and
another 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the amendment of
plaint seeking to introduce alternate relief of mandatory injunction
for payment of specified amount is bad in law. The alternative relief
was available to be asked for when the suit was filed but not made.
He cannot be permitted to amend the plaint after the suit was barred
by limitation during the pendency of the proceedings in the appellate
Court or the second appellate Court.
13. The judgments which are relied upon by the learned counsel
for the plaintiffs i.e. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal (supra), Pankaja
6 (2004) 3 SCC 392
7 AIR 1957 SC 357
8 AIR 1996 SC 642
(supra) and Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra) are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, on the ground
that, in the case on hand, defendant No.1 in his written statement,
which was filed in the month of September, 2007, and defendant
Nos.2 to 9 in their written statement, which was filed on 02.02.2011,
they specifically mentioned that defendant No.1 alienated the
property in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 9 through registered sale
deed dated 11.05.2006. The petitioners have not given any specific
reasons much less valid reasons why they have not filed application
seeking proposed amendment within reasonable time. By virtue of
the proposed amendment, the entire character of the suit is going to
be changed, especially the proposed amendment sought by the
parties is barred by limitation.
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any
illegality or irregularity or the error in the impugned order dated
10.03.2025, to exercise the supervisory powers conferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
15. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
16. After pronouncing the order, learned counsel for the
petitioners requested this Court that the petitioners be granted
liberty to raise all the grounds, as may be available to them under
law, in the suit before the Court below, and the Court below be
directed to decide the suit on its own merits without being influenced
by any of the observations made by it in the impugned order dated
10.03.2025, passed in I.A.No.95 of 2024 or by this court in the
present civil revision petition.
17. The above submission has not been opposed by learned
counsel for respondent No.3.
18. In view of the same, the petitioners are granted liberty as
prayed for and the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit on
its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made by it in
the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.95 of 2024 or
by this court in the present civil revision petition.
In view of dismissal of civil revision petition, interlocutory
applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 31.07.2025.
Note: Issue C.C. in one week.
B/o.
pgp
Note L.R. Copy to be marked.
