(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 toThe above named petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the Order dated 22.12.2025, in I.A. No.671 of 2025 in O.S No.69 of 2025, on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet, SPSR Nellore,

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No.69 of 2025, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpeta, SPSR Nellore, pending disposal of the above revision and pass)

1. The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 22.12.2025 in I.A.No.671 of 2025 in O.S.No.69 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.69 of 2025 against the defendants seeking perpetual injunction in respect of Ac.20.01 cents in S.Nos.22-2 and 22-2A of Periyavattu village, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3. a) In the plaint, it was contended, inter alia, that the schedule property is the plaintiff’s ancestral property and it is Inam land given to pakeers by the Government. The then Special Deputy Tahsildar for Inam, Gudur, granted ryotwari patta under the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. Late Syed Khadar Valli Sahib, father-in-law of the plaintiff, had three sons: Syed Dastagiri Saheb; Syed Mahaboob Hussain (husband of the plaintiff) and Syed Khaja Hussain. The said Syed Khadar Valli Sahib died on 18.06.1968. In the revenue records, the name of Syed Khadar Valli Sahib was entered as pattadar, and the name of the husband of the plaintiff was shown as enjoyers. The report of the village surveyor and Village Revenue Officer shows that the legal heirs of Syed Khadar Valli Sahib have been in possession of the subject land. The defendants have no right or title over the schedule property. The plaintiff’s husband constructed a house long back, obtained electricity and paid house tax to the Government.

                  b) The family of the plaintiff left an extent of Ac.0.58 cents for cemetery and a tomb, as also built, and in the revenue records, it is mentioned as burial ground. The defendants are residents of Tamil Nadu and have nothing to do with the schedule property, and they attacked the son of the plaintiff, resulting in the registration of a case in Crime No.139 of 2024. On 13.04.2025, the defendants and their followers came to the schedule property and created a ruckus. The plaintiff’s son gave a report, and the police registered the same as a case in Crime No.63 of 2025 of Tada Police Station. The legal heirs of Syed Khadar Valli Sahib have moved to other towns to find livelihood, and the plaintiff and her son are taking care of the schedule property.

                  c) In the cause of action Paragraph, it was mentioned that the cause of action for the suit arose on 26.04.2024 when a case was registered against the defendant in Crime No.139 of 2024 and on 13.04.2025 at 11.30 a.m. when the defendants created galata and tried to occupy the cemetery, and police registered a case in Crime No.63 of 2025.

4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.318 of 2025 for grant of ad-interim injunction. Initially, the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction. Upon filing the counter, the order of interim injunction was modified to status quo by order dated 18.07.2025 till the disposal of the suit.

5. The 3rd defendant filed written statement and contended that the husband of plaintiff Syed Mahaboob Hussain, his younger brother of Syed Khaja Hussain and brother-in-law’s son Syed Khadarvalli filed suit O.S.No.104 of 2008 against the 3rd respondent, his sister and their Power of Attorney, seeking permanent injunction in respect of plaint schedule property. The said suit was dismissed on contest on 28.12.2016. The plaintiff’s husband and others filed appeal A.S.No.19 of 2017 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur. The appeal was dismissed on 18.08.2022. The judgment in O.S.No.104 of 2008 operates as res judicata. In fact, the 3rd respondent filed I.A.No.651 of 2025 on 16.05.2025 to frame a preliminary issue as to whether the suit is maintainable or not, as it is hit by res judicata under Section 11 of CPC.

6. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.671 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 10.11.2025 to amend the plaint by adding Paragraph 10 (A) and certain lines in Paragraph-11 and by substituting Paragraph-12 and to add the relief of declaration.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended that previously there were civil disputes in respect of suit property between the plaintiff’s husband and his family members on one hand and the 3rd defendant and his family members on the other hand. The plaintiff’s husband, his brother and others filed suit O.S.No.104 of 2008 against the 3rd defendant and his family members seeking perpetual injunction. The plaintiff’s husband filed certain documents. The 3rd defendant and his family members filed written statement in O.S.No.104 of 2008 and filed fabricated documents in respect suit schedule property and also they examined the Tahsildar, Tada Mandal as D.W.2. The suit O.S.No.104 of 2008 was dismissed holding that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands, as the plaintiff is claiming an extent of Ac.20.01 cents in S.No.22/2, however, they had only Ac.15.00 cents. The appeal A.S.No.19 of 2017 was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the defendants 4 and 5 in O.S.No.104 of 2008 assaulted the plaintiff’s son, resulting in the registration of cases in Crime Nos.139 of 2024 and 63 of 2025 of Tada Police Station. The defendant contended that the suit property is ancestral and hence, there is a cloud on the right and title of the suit land and such claim should be decided by way of relief of declaration. The suit O.S.No.104 of 2008 was filed for permanent injunction and no title was decided therein. The plaintiff and her ancestors perfected title to the lands for over 60 years and established continuous possession. To establish the real controversy, it is just and necessary to amend the plaint and also to avoid multiplicity of litigation. No prejudice would be caused to the defendant, if the amendment is allowed.

8. The 3rd defendant filed a counter and opposed the application.

9. The trial Court by order dated 22.11.2025 dismissed the application.

10. Heard Ms K.Saritha, learned counsel representing Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Phani Teja, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.

11. Now, the points for consideration are:

                  1) Whether the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment is legally sustainable?

                  2) Whether the order dated 22.12.2025 in I.A.No.671 of 2025 in O.S.No.69 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sullurpet suffers from illegality, and brooks interference of this Court?

12. The facts narrated supra require no reiteration. The object of amendment is proper and effective adjudication of the case and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is an established principle of law that while considering the application for amendment, normally the Court shall not go into the merits of the case. The primary object of the Court is to see whether the amendment is imperative in proper and effective adjudication and whether seeking amendment is bona fide or mala fide. The application for amendment can be ordered if the amendment is bona fide and where the amendment fundamentally or constitutionally does not change the nature or character of the suit.

13. In this case at hand, as seen from the plaint, on 02.05.2025, it seems ad-interim injunction was granted. Upon filing the counter by the 3rd defendant, the order of injunction was modified to the order of status quo on 18.07.2025. It is also borne out from the record that against the order of status quo, the 2nd defendant filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2025 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur and the same was allowed on 10.11.2025 by setting aside the order of status quo and the I.A.No.318 of 2025 was remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. A counter was filed in I.A.No.318 of 2025 on 16.05.2025. The defendant also filed I.A.No.651 of 2025 on 16.05.2025 under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC to frame a preliminary issue. Though the written statement was filed in the suit, the copy of the same was not made available in the revision. After the written statement was filed by narrating the suit O.S.No.104 of 2008, filed by the plaintiff’s husband and others, the present application was filed seeking amendment.

14. Of course, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial in the suit has not been commenced. In fact, issues are also not settled till date. However, whether the amendment now sought, in the considered opinion of this court, is to overcome the legal bar and to nullify the effect of earlier adjudication, requires to be considered in the facts of this case.

15. In Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons ((2009) 10 SCC 84 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1709), the Hon’ble Apex Court, after considering several judgments, laid down certain factors to be considered while dealing with the applications seeking amendment.

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd ((2022) 16 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128), after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:—

                  (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

                  (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side.

                  (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if -

                  (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side.

                  (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations)

                  (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit;

                  (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide,

                  (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence.

                  (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are -

                  (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

                  (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach.

                  (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.

17. As seen from the expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the prayer for amendment generally requires to be allowed unless it is mala fide. This Court is conscious that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, if the parties by way of amendment are not withdrawing any admission and if the amendment is not time-barred, generally the amendment can be allowed.

18. In this case at hand, the affidavit filed in support of the petition does not indicate that the plaintiff came to know about the dispute in O.S.No.104 of 2008 after filing the written statement or after filing I.A.No.651 of 2025 under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC. After the ad-interim injunction was modified into the order of status quo and after the defendant filed I.A.No.651 of 2025 to frame a preliminary issue, the plaintiff filed the present application seeking amendment of prayer and to insert Para-10(A) and sought to introduce the aspects relating to the suit O.S.No.104 of 2008.

19. The plaintiff, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition, is aware of the earlier litigation in O.S.No.104 of 2008, which ended in dismissal on 28.12.2016 and also dismissal of appeal for default, according to the plaintiff. No reason is forthcoming regarding non-inclusion of Paragraph-10(A) and the prayer now sought for by way of amendment when the suit was filed, except for stating that there is a cloud over right and title on the land and such claim should be decided by way of relief of declaration.

20. Indeed, a cloud was created regarding title in O.S.No.104 of 2008, and the defendants denied the title and eventually the suit was dismissed on merits on the ground that the plaintiffs therein did not come to the Court with clean hands. By way of amendment, now the plaintiff pleads the cloud as if the cloud is created for the first time by filing the written statement.

21. Merely because the amendment is pre-trial, especially in a case of this nature, cannot be permitted. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the amendment was needed because of the written statement in the present suit. The amendment, now sought, is due to the cloud in the earlier suit. Such an amendment is impermissible. Of course, the trial Court went into the merits to some extent; however, the conclusion of the trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not warrant interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

22. In Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. and Another Vs. B.Gurappa Naidu and Others (2026 SCC OnLine SC 745), the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and summarised the principles as follows:

                  “35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters, is as follows:

                  a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals.

                  b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record.

                  c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.”

                  The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the judgments in Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil4; Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.5, and Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel6.

23. Given the discussion supra, the order under revision brooks no interference while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The trial court appreciated all the contentions and passed a reasoned order. There are no merits in the revision. The revision is liable to be dismissed.

24. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.