(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 tobegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by the Order dated 17-06-2025 passed in l,A.223/2025 in O.S.No.33/2022, on the file of In the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narasaraopet

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in the suit OS. No. 33 of 2022 consequent upon the order passed in lA. No. 223 of 2025 dated. 17-06-2025 pending Civil Revision Petition and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

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 may be pleased to vacate the stay in the above Civil Revision Petition filed challenging the order dated 07.08.2025 in I.A.No.223 of 2025 in CRP NO. 1898 OF 2025 and pass)

1. The respondent herein had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner herein, dated 11.05.2021, to sell the property belonging to the respondent to the petitioner at a rate of Rs.13,25,000/- per cent. The respondent is said to have paid an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the petitioner on 11.05.2021 itself.

2. Subsequently, the respondent filed O.S.No.33 of 2022 before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet, contending that the respondent had come to know, that the petitioner had mortgaged the property in the year 2017 itself, to the Punjab National Bank, Guntur Branch and that the bank officials had conducted an E-auction under which the suit schedule property had been sold away to the successful bidder. The respondent, further contending that she would be entitled for a return, of her advance, along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., amounting to Rs.44,12,334/-

3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner is said to have preferred an appeal in S.A.No.230 of 2022 against the E-auction, dated 05.05.2022, which came to be allowed and the E-auction was set aside. It also appears that the encumbrances over the property were lifted by the Orders, dated 28.11.2024, of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam.

4. The respondent having come to know of the change circumstances moved an I.A.No.223 of 2025, contending that she was now interested in purchasing the property and wanted the suit prayer to be amended so as to include a prayer for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 11.05.2021. This application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner having moved a suit for recovery of advance amount cannot convert such a suit into a suit for specific performance and also on the ground that the period for payment of consideration had lapsed and the contract suit for specific performance is barred by limitation.

5. The Trial Court, by an Order dated 17.06.2025, went into the question of limitation and held that an amendment cannot be denied on the ground of limitation as the question of limitation is a disputed question of fact and therefore, the prayer for amendment could not be rejected. The Trial Court also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limites & anr, in Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022, dated 01.09.2022, the Judgments in the case of L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd Vs. Jardine Skinner & Co(AIR 1957 SC 357), in the case of Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil & two ors(1957 SCR 595), in the case of Kisandas Rupchand & anr Vs Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant & Ors(ILR(1909) 33 Bombay 644), in the case of Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappa & Ors((2001) 2 SCC 472).

6. Aggrieved by the said Order, dated 17.06.2025, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Sri Phani Babu Yalamanchili, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had raised the issues of limitation as well as the change in the nature of the suit. However, the Trial Court only considered the question of limitation and did not go into the other issue raised by the petitioner. He would contend that the respondent, having given up on the agreement of sale and having decided to recover the advance amount, that is said to have been given, cannot resile from this position and again seek a decree for specific performance of the said agreement of sale. He would also contend that such an amendment would alter the very nature of the suit and is not permissible.

8. Sri G. Sri Harsha, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that suit was originally framed for recovery of amount only on the ground that the subject matter of the suit itself had ceased to be available and not because the respondent was not willing to purchase the property. He would contend that the respondent had moved for amendment of the suit immediately after coming to know of the Orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal which had removed all the encumbrances over the property. He would submit that in such circumstances, it would only be appropriate that the amendment is permitted and all the issues can always be left open for consideration by the Trial Court.

9. This Court is bound by the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on whether the question of limitation can be taken up at the time of considering an amendment to the plaint. However, the remaining question of whether an amendment which would alter the very nature of the suit is permissible and whether such an amendment would be permissible when the respondent had affectively terminated the agreement of sale, by seeking the refund of the advance said to have been given by the respondent.

10. This Court is of the opinion that such a course of action is impermissible. The amendment would effectively change the suit, from a suit for recovery of money to a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Such a change, in the very nature of the suit, would not be permissible. Further, the respondent having sought recovery of the money which is said to have been advanced by the respondent, cannot press for specific performance of an agreement of sale, when it is clear that the respondent was not ready and willing to complete the sale transaction.

11. For both these reasons, the amendment application should have been rejected. Consequently, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the Order of the Trial Court, dated 17.06.2025, in I.A.No.223 of 2025 in O.S.No.33 of 2022, on the file the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.