Oral Order:

1. Heard Ms. T.V. Sridevi, learned Counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioners and Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order passed in I.A.No.96 of 2024 in O.S.No.28 of 2018. The said Suit was filed for cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed dated 21.11.2014 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2.

3. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the Suit, Defendant No.2 further alienated the property in bits and pieces to Defendant Nos.3 to 8. It is submitted that the Trial has not commenced. The Plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application No.96 of 2024 seeking the consequential relief of recovery of possession. Vide Order dated 29.07.2025, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam dismissed the Interlocutory Application, stating that the Plaintiff is required to file a Statutory Suit for recovery of possession of the Plaint Schedule Property because the cancellation of the document alters the nature of the Suit for the recovery of possession. The reasoning given by the learned Judge is usefully extracted hereunder:

                  (d) Here, the petitioner reveals apparently that recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property limitation is different the plaintiff is at liberty to file separate suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property because the cancellation of document alters the nature of the suit from recovery of possession. So, here the court opined that at this juncture, the amendment of recovery of possession by adding item No.3 and 4 are enlarge the schedule can be seen as change the nature of the suit which is generally, not permitted. The plaintiff had knowledge of the schedule item at the time fo filling of the suit adding of additional schedule items in the pending suit changes the fundamental character of the suit. The amendment which introduced entirely new cause of action or change of nature of the suit may not be allowed. The Honourable APEX court also confirmed the above principle in several judgments so invoking the said principle and considering the above foregoing reasons, this court declined to allow the petition. POINT is answered accordingly.”

4. Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has not disputed the fact that the trial has not commenced. However, he seeks to sustain the Impugned Order, also, on the ground that the Plaintiffs ought to have filed the Interlocutory Application earlier and that there is delay on the part of the Plaintiff in filing Interlocutory Application No.96 of 2024 while the Suit was filed in the year 2018.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the following Judgments:

                  (i) Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another : (2022) 16 SCC 1 ; (Paras 71.1, 71.2, 71.5, 71.9 & 71.11)

                  71.1. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

                  71.2. 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 6 Rule 17 CPC.

                  71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

                  71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision.

                  71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi : 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897).

                  (emphasis supplied)

                  (ii) Revajeetu Builders And Developers vs Narayanaswamy And Sons And Others : (2009) 10 SCC 84 ; (Paras 58 & 63)

                  58. The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courts' discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment.

                  63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:

                  (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case;

                  (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide;

                  (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;

                  (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation;

                  (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and

                  (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application.

                  (emphasis supplied)

                  (iii) Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal And Others vs K.K. Modi And Others : (2006) 4 SCC 385 ; (Paras 17 & 28)

                  17. In our view, since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit.

                  28. Since the Court has entered into a discussion into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment, we have no other option but to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. Since it is settled law that the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment, the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law as observed by this Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu : (2002) 7 SCC 559.

                  (iv) Ragu Thilak D. John vs S. Rayappa And Others : AIR 2001 SC 699 ; (Paras 5 & 6)

                  5. …."The purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation.

                  6. If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plaint which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for.

                  (v) Chinnapareddy Subba Reddy vs Chinnapareddy Srinu and 2 Others : 2013 (1) ALD 388 ; (Para 8)

                  8. In my opinion, the above-referred judgment of the Supreme Court applies in all fours to the present case. Even though the petitioner has asserted in his plaint that he was in possession of the property, obviously on account of the prima facie finding rendered by the lower Court in the application for injunction, he has sought for an alternative relief of recovery of possession. There is no embargo on the petitioner claiming such an alternative plea. Eventually, it is for him to establish whether he was in possession of the property, failing which he has to establish his right for recovery of possession. As held by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned judgment, by dismissing the applications for amendment of this nature, the parties will be driven to file a separate suit for recovery of possession and that would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Unless the prayer sought to be made by way of amendment is barred by law, the Courts shall make a liberal approach in allowing the applications for amendment in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the amendment is barred by any law, such as the Law of Limitation, or that any right vested in the respondents will be taken away by allowing such amendment.

                  (vi) Tatavarthi Sirisha And Others vs Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Educational Society And Others : 2023 (6) ALT 814 (AP) ; (Para 9)

                  9. As decision cited supra, as no new cause of action, which is time barred, is sought to be introduced by way of amendment. Further trial of the suit, since not yet commenced, no prejudice will be caused to defendant in suit by allowing the amendment. In the instant case, chief affidavit of PW-1 has been filed and marked exhibits on his behalf and it is coming up for cross examination of PW-1 only as per the case status submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Having considered the above facts and the Judgments, this Court is of the considered view that the reasoning given by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam, is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the Plaintiff is entitled to seek consequential relief. It is also on record that Defendant No. 2 further alienated the property in bits and pieces to Defendant Nos.3 to 8. Therefore, the consequential relief of recovery of possession becomes not only essential but very crucial. If such consequential relief is not pleaded, in fact, the Suit itself seeking mere cancellation of the Registered Sale Deed is not maintainable.

7. In this view of the matter, the Impugned Order dated 29.07.2025 in I.A.No.96 of 2024 in O.S. No. 28 of 2018, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam, is set aside.

8. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.