(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 03.01.2025 in I.A.No.618 of 2024 in O.S.No.368 of 2016 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.)

1. The petitioners herein are plaintiffs in the suit and respondents herein are defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.618 of 2024 in O.S.No.368 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, which was dismissed. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties will be referred to, as per their array in the suit.

2. The plaintiffs herein filed an application I.A.No.618 of 2024 in O.S.No.368 of 2016 of the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the plaint as under:

                  "….to amend the plaint as mentioned below to delete item no.2 of the plaint schedule:

                  a. to amend the extent of item 1 as Ac.3.48 cents;

                  b. and consequently permit us to amend the plaint schedule and file neat copy of the schedule and also;

                  c. to delete the portion of para III(d) “The plaintiffs learnt the Adangals for the plaint schedule…….. in respect of the entire extent of land covered by S.no.57/2”; (till the end of that para)

                  d. to add the following after para III(e);

                  III(f) The plaintiffs got surveyed the lands in S.no.57 and 56 with reference to documents of plaintiffs and defendants, got prepared plan, drawn to scale and the same is filed here with. After such got prepared by a qualified surveyor, who was also close relative to us by name Y.Srinivasa Rao, appraised us that there exists a bund running from North to South dividing the land in our physical possession and enjoyment is on Western side and its measuring Ac.3.48 Cents and that the land on the Eastern side measuring Ac.1.52 Cents being part of 57/1 and that the land on the further east thereof is covered by S.no.57/2 and that its extent is Ac.0.94 Cents and where as the land S.no.56 was converted into layout, and such land was sold by 1st defendant to 3rd parties, who in turn formed layout and sold.

                  (g) The land and property acquired by 2nd defendant is covered by three documents 1) Sale deed dated 13.02.2007 bearing doct.no.509/07, he acquired Ac.1.42 Cents covered by S.no.57/1. 2) Sale deed dated 13.02.2007 bearing doct.no.110/07, he acquired Ac.0.10 Cents covered by S.no.57/1 and Ac.0.94 Cents in S.no.57/2. The lands covered by these two documents were sold by 2nd defendant to Adon Infra Projects on 03.04.2019 under doct.no.1132/2019 i.e., after filing of this suit, in which the western boundary is shown as that of the lands of grandmother Y.Simhachalam and further shown the land covered in S.no.56, being held by DVR Infra Projects is on the eastern side, thus it is clear that the land shown in the enclosed plan is according to the sale deed dated 03.04.2019 executed by the 2nd defendant. While examining these documents it is noticed that the vendors of said Simhachalam, while executing the sale deed inadvertently got recited item no.2 of sale deed as that of land covered by S.no.52 but being abutting to 1st item thereof. Thus, the properties covered by items 1 and 2 are a compact single plot.

                  (h) It is also relevant to mention that the land covered by S.no.56 measuring Ac.9.62 Cents was acquired by 2nd defendant under doct no’s 511/2007, 512/2007 both dated 13.02.2007 and doct no.3117/2007 and the same was disposed of to the said DVR Infra Project under doct.no 1131/2019 that is after filing of this suit. Thus, the 2nd defendant has not retained any land and so also, the 1st defendant has no land in S.no.57/1. and thus render justice."

3. The plaintiffs filed suit to grant permanent injunction against the defendants, their men, servants and agents restraining from in anyway interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land and from invading their rights in any manner over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs aver that the land in Survey No.57/1 to an extent of Ac.1-66 cents of dry land and to an extent of Ac.0-51 cents covered by Survey No.57/2, situated in Solipi Somarajupeta Village in the then Nelimarla Mandal, now in Gurla Mandal, purchased by one Smt.Yerramsetti Simhachalam, W/o.Suribabu, vide registered sale deed document No.5021 of 1981 dated 02.12.1981; since the purchase of the property, she is in possession and the plaintiffs, who are the paternal grandsons, succeeded the property by inheritance and the plaintiffs learnt that the 2nd defendant got recorded his name in the revenue records to grab the property with an evil intention and the 2nd defendant indulged in the said nefarious act and surreptitiously and in collusion with revenue officials, notwithstanding the incorporation of the name of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiffs are in the possession of the suit schedule property, hence prayed to grant permanent injunction.

4. Now the plaintiffs filed the I.A.No.618 of 2024 for amendment of the pliant schedule on the grounds that the plaintiffs have changed the vakalat and the present counsel after going through the sale deed of the vendor of their grandmother, revenue records, mutation applications, rejection orders, survey reports, and also document dated 30.04.2006, executed by the 1st defendant in favour on N.V.S.Suryanarayana, wherein the 1st defendant has admitted the survey number 57 is not his property and got surveyed the land by a qualified surveyor, the 2nd defendant acquired the land in survey number 57 land in three sale deeds and the 2nd defendant sold the land to Adon Infra Projects under Doc.No.1132/2019 on 03.04.2019 and the execution of the sale deed in favour of the grandmother of the plaintiffs her vendors by mistake mentioned item no-2 as land in Survey No.52, though actually it forms a compact single plot along with item No-1 of the plaint schedule abutting it, the 2nd defendant disposed his land in Survey Nos.56, 57 of 2019 and he has no subsisting interest, therefore notwithstanding the mistaken description in their grandmother’s sale deed and the surveyor’s plan and the boundaries admitted by the defendants themselves, hence prayed to permit the plaintiffs to amend the plaint schedule in the interest of justice and to avoid irreparable hardship and loss.

5. The defendants have not filed any counter to I.A.No.618 of 2024.

6. The learned trial Court Judge, after considering arguments of the plaintiffs, has dismissed the I.A.No.618 of 2024, vide order dated 03.01.2025, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Revajeetu Builder & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons and others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Court should be vigilant to grant amendment or not (i) whether the amendment sought is necessary for determining the real controversy (ii) where it introduces a totally different new and inconsistent case, (iii) whether it prejudices the other side (iv) whether it amounts to withdrawal of an admission.

7. And the learned trial Court also relied on another judgment of the Apex Court in Vishwambhar and other Vs. Laxminaryan reported in (2001) 6 SCC 163, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when an amendment changes the nature of the suit shouldn’t be allowed, and when the amendment application substitutes one cause of action for another. The learned trial Court also cited another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal and others reported in (1998) 1 SCC 278 and also quoted another judgment in Kailash Vs. Nanhku reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that amendment is impermissible, when it is permitted, it drastically alter the nature of the suit after commencement of the trial.

8. Challenging the I.A.No.618 of 2024 order dated 03.01.2025, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the grounds that the trial Court ought to have been allowed the amendment, as it causes no prejudice to the defendants and it doesn’t alter or change the nature of the suit, as observed by the trial Court, as the defendants have not filed any counter or contested the Interlocutory Application, the Court ought to have been allowed on this score alone.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of G.S.Prakash Vs. Polasa Hanumanlu reported in (2015) 1 ALD 270, for the proposition that the Courts must be more liberal in allowing the amendment of pleadings as the opposite party will have more opportunities to rebut the amended pleadings than in the latter cases. And also relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad in the case of Jangili Venkateswarlu & Ors. Vs. Bandaru Omkaraiah & Anr. reported in 2002(3) A.P.L.J. 355 (HC) and the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

                  "For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the Judgment under appeal permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint by adding the relief of recovery of possession as an alternative relief is erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law."

                  This judgment goes against the petitioners herein.

10. The learned trial Court Judge has correctly dismissed the I.A.No.618 of 2024 noting that, if the amendment is allowed, it changes the entire suit. The plaintiffs are now attempting to change the entire scope of the suit changing the extent of suit and survey numbers by way of this amendment. According to the plaintiffs, their paternal grandmother purchased the land in Survey No.57/1 to an extent of Ac.1.66 cents of dry land and to an extent of Ac.0.51 cents covered by Survey No.57/2, vide registered sale deed document No.5021 of 1981 dated 02.12.1981. Now the plaintiffs want to change the extent of land and the survey number. The suit is based upon the sale deed, if any mistakes found in the sale deed and any errors within that document should be rectified accordingly. Unless the sale deed is rectified, the plaintiffs cannot seek a change in the plaint based on the surveyor's finding that the property measures 3.48 acres. The law is very well that the document prevails no oral evidence can be given contrary to document. As per the document, the land is purchased by the grandmother of the plaintiffs is Ac.1.66 cents in Survey No.57/1, an extent Ac.0.51 cents covered by Survey No.57/2. And the learned trial Court has rightly relied on the judgment of the Apex Court which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The mere failure of the defendants to contest is not sufficient ground to allow the application. The situation suggests that there is some collusion in between the plaintiffs and defendants to decisive the subsequent purchaser. Therefore this Court sees any perversity or illegality in the order of the trial Court.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending in both the cases, if any, shall stand closed.