1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District in IA.No.9 of 2023 in OS.No.13 of 2016, dated 06.01.2023.

2. It is mentioned in the cause title of the revision petition that respondent No.2 is not a necessary party in the petition.

3. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 5 are the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3, 5 and respondent No.1 is the respondent-defendant. Respondent No.2 is the petitioner No.4-plaintiff No.4 in IA.No.9 of 2023 in OS.No.13 of 2016.

4.1. Petitioners and respondent No.2 have filed IA.No.9 of 2023 in OS.No.13 of 2016 on 04.01.2023 under Section 151, Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) r/w Rule 128 of Civil Rules of Practice to amend the plaint for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit land in survey No.11/A admeasuring Acs.02-34 guntas.

4. 2. Petitioner No.2 has sworn the affidavit in IA No.9 of 2023 on his behalf and also on behalf of other petitioners stating that petitioner No.1 died on 19.06.2020. Thereafter, they came on record and from the date of purchase of the plaint schedule property by petitioner No.1 on 12.09.2001 they were in possession and doing cultivation by raising seasonal crops. Recently, they kept the said land fallow without raising any crops due to scarcity of water. The respondent No.1-defendant taking advantage of the patta standing in his name, with a malafide intention forcibly entered into the suit land in the month of November 2022 and illegally taken possession in spite of their protest, thereby they were forced to file the petition for amendment of prayer seeking relief of recovery of possession.

5. Respondent No.1-defendant has not filed counter and the learned trial Court has dismissed IA No.9 of 2023 on 06.01.2023 holding that the petition has been filed by the petitioners and respondent No.2 herein to fill up the lacunas that crept during the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the learned trial Court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners and respondent No.2 herein for amendment of the plaint is illegal and vitiated by material irregularity. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that amendment application can be filed at any stage of the proceedings, the findings of the Court that the petitioners filed the application to fill up the lacunas is incorrect and also failed to see that respondent No.1-defendant forcibly entered into the suit land and occupied the same in the month of November, 2022 and has not denied the averments in the affidavit by filing counter. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that in view of subsequent events during pendency of the suit, it was necessitated to file the application for amendment of prayer in the suit and the amendment sought is only in respect of relief in the suit in view of subsequent events. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decision in the case of P.Shekar Goud and others Vs. M/s Bengal Cold Rollers Pvt Ltd., rep. by its Managing Partner/Director, Mahabubnagar District (2022 (4) ALT 716 (S.B.)).

7.1. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable as the order of the learned trial Court do not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or any procedural impropriety or patent illegality. The suit is at the stage of cross-examination of DW.1. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Jai Singh and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another ((2010) 9 SCC 385) (2) M.Revanna Vs. Anjanamma (dead) by Legal Representatives and others ((2019) 4 SCC 332) (3) Shibjee Pd. Singh Vs. Manju Devi and Others (2024 SCC Online Pat 2651) (4) Ahmed Ali Khan and others Vs. Tayab Khatoon and others (5 CRP Nos.1391, 1402, 1404, 1493, 1507 & 1521 of 2024 of the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 16.07.2024).

               7.2. Respondent No.1 counsel has filed short notes.

8. Heard learned counsel on record, perused the material.

9. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the order passed by the learned trial Court in IA.No.9 of 2023 in OS.No.13 of 2016 dated 06.01.2023 suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court?

10.1. Originally petitioner No.1 has filed suit in OS.No.13 of 2016 against respondent No.1-sole defendant for declaration of title and for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant therein from interfering with his possession over the suit land bearing survey No.11/A admeasuring Acs.02.34 guntas situated at Annaram Village of Farooqnagar Mandal of Mahabubnagar District.

               10.2. It is the case of the original plaintiff that Bheem Reddy Krishna Reddy has obtained power of attorney from his son (Bheem Reddy Venkateswar Reddy) on 14.07.2001, the GPA holder has sold land admeasuring Acs.02-34 guntas in survey No.11/A as Karta of the Joint family property in the name of sole plaintiff on 12.09.2001 through ordinary sale deed and delivered possession, since then he is in possession of the property as absolute owner and cultivating personally.

11. Respondent No.1-defendant has filed his written statement on 01.06.2016 stating that he is the absolute owner and possessor of suit land, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 29.10.2015 from Choulapally Laxmaiah and M.Venkat Reddy for valid sale consideration and that the original plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land at any point of time.

12. Sole plaintiff (petitioner No.1 herein) died during the pendency of the suit thereby his LRs were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 (petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and respondent No.2 herein).

13. Short notes filed by respondent No.1 counsel goes to show that on 09.11.2022, PW.2 was cross-examined and he stated that suit is filed for seeking possession thereby admitting that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property, the suit in OS.No.13 of 2016 came up before the Court on 09.11.2022, 15.11.2022, 30.11.2022, 01.12.2022, 14.12.2022 and 21.12.2022, on all these occasions petitioners-plaintiffs failed to make any such claim that they were dispossessed from the suit property and only as an afterthought, they made an application that they were dispossessed in the month of November, 2022.

14.1. In P.Shekar Goud1, the High Court observed that “the trial Court ought to have allowed the application for amendment of pleadings so that the lis might have been disposed of by now”.

               14.2. In the above said decision, the respondents therein has raised a compound wall and also made minor constructions in the suit property when one of the petitioners visited the same in the month of June, 2016 i.e., on 03.06.2016. The application came to be filed at the stage of arguments. The above said decision is not applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that there is an admission of PW.2 in his cross-examination that they filed the suit for possession, which admission supports the contention of respondent No.1-defendant.

15. Principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well-known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a "bull in a china shop", to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

               The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and reappreciate the evidence. Generally, it cannot substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi-judicial tribunals. The power to reappreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice : (See Jai Singh and Others2). The same view is followed in Ahmed Ali Khan5.

16. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bonafide or malafide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money : (See M.Revanna3). The same view is followed in Shibjee Pd. Singh4.

17. IA.No.9 of 2023 came to be filed on 04.01.2023 stating that the petitioners were dispossessed from the suit property in the month of November, 2022, if that being the case they have not taken any steps in the suit as and when it is posted. The admission made by PW.2 in his cross-examination on 09.11.2022 goes to show that petitioners-plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property. It is the case of respondent No.1 -defendant in the written statement that he is in possession of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under registered sale deed, dated 29.10.2015 from one Choulapally Laxmaiah and M.Venkat Reddy for valid sale consideration.

18. The learned trial Court while dismissing IA.No.9 of 2023 observed that the suit is coming up for cross-examination of DW.1 and the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed on 14.12.2022 and after cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2 the present application has been filed to fill up the lacunas.

19. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of the record or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner.

20. This court is of the view that there is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court and it has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint. The decisions cited by respondent No.1 counsel are applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that amendment application came to be filed after commencement of trial and the petitioners kept silent for almost six effective hearings of the case. Petitioners have not made out due diligence in making the application, there are no merits in the CRP, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

21. CRP is dismissed without costs.

Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.