Telangana High Court
Thotakura Narsaiah vs Revu Shivaiah, on 12 September, 2025
THE HONOURABL SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.
2826, 2837, 2858 AND 2898 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
1. Since all the Civil Revision Petitions are connected to each other and arising out of one and the same suit i.e. O.S.No.65 of 2013 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, they are heard together and being disposed of by a common order.
2. i) C.R.P.No.2826 of 2025 is filed against the dismissal order dated 17.07.2025 in I.A.No.199 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013, which was filed to amend the prayer in the plaint.
ii) C.R.P.No.2858 of 2025 is filed against the dismissal order dated 17.07.2025 in I.A.No.200 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013, which was filed to receive the additional documents.
iii) C.R.P.No.2898 of 2025 is filed against dismissal order dated 17.07.2025 in I.A.No.201 of 2 SK,J 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013 which was filed to reopen the evidence.
iv) C.R.P.No.2837 of 2025 is filed against the dismissal order dated 17.07.2025 in I.A.No.202 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013, which was filed to recall the PW1 for the purpose of marking documents.
3. Heard Sri Kunal Kakad, learned Counsel appearing for Sri B.Mohan, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Jagidishwar Reddy, learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents and perused the record.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the father and grandfather of petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit against the respondents/defendants, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and recovery of possession and cancellation of registered Doc.No.1095/2010 dated 01.04.2010 and for 3 SK,J rectification of revenue records in respect of A, B and C schedule properties situated at Veeravally Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District and in the said suit evidence was closed and was coming for reply arguments of the plaintiffs.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the suit was filed by the father and grandfather of the petitioners in the year, 2013 for declaration of title, perpetual injunction, recovery of possession and cancellation of Registered Sale deed in respect of ''A to C" schedule lands against the respondents/defendants and due to typographical mistake it was mentioned as A to C schedule properties, instead of 'A & C' schedule properties for perpetual injunction, and recovery of possession in respect of 'B' Schedule property, by cancelling the Sale Deed No.1095/2010 dated 01.04.2010 executed by the respondents Nos.1 to 4 in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 7 in respect of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.2.22 guntas in Sy.Nos.85/AA/1, as null and void 4 SK,J and therefore filed a petition to amend the prayer of the plaint as perpetual injunction in respect of A & C Schedule properties and recovery of possession of respect of B-Schedule properties.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit, after closure of the evidence on both sides, the petitioners could trace a document in their house, which reflects partition among their father and brothers of his father, wherein the grandfather of the petitioners/plaintiff No.1 made partition of all lands in Sy.No.85, on 12.04.1996 and the said document is crucial to prove their case.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners also filed another petition to mark the said document recall of evidence of PW1 is essential. As the suit was at the stage of arguments, the petitioners filed another petition reopen the evidence of PW1.
5
SK,J
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, all the petitions filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by separate impugned orders dated 17.07.2015. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, the trial court ought to have seen that after commencement of arguments the petitioners traced the documents and therefore failed to consider the petition to receive the documents. He would further submit that the trial court failed to consider that the due to typographical mistake A to C Schedule was mentioned in the prayer portion, instead of 'A & C' and such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint and even if the amendment petition is allowed, the nature of suit will not be changed and requested to set aside the impugned orders.
6
SK,J
10. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents have filed their comprehensive written statement in the suit in month of June, 2013, wherein they clearly mentioned that the respondents/defendant Nos. 5 to 7 have purchased B-Schedule property on 01.04.2010 vide document No.1095/2010 from the respondents 1 to 4/defendant Nos.1 to 4 and since the date of purchase the respondent Nos.5 to 7 are in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the said registered sale deed was also implemented in the revenue records and they were also issued old and new pattadar pass books and they also obtained crop loan by depositing the same with PACS, Chandupatla. They further contended that the petition was filed after twenty five years of execution of register sale deed and the suit was at the stage of arguments and if the amendment is allowed, it will change entire nature of the suit.
7
SK,J
11. The learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants would further submit that the petitioners filed a petition to receive certified copy of Amendment Register for the year 1996-97 and sale deed executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of the plaintiff No.2 and the said documents were not referred in the plaint pleadings or in the evidence of the plaintiff witnesses, therefore they cannot be received and moreover the alleged documents are inadmissible in evidence and there are no merits in the revisions and the trial Court rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners and requested to dismiss the revision petitions.
12. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents in support of their contentions, placed the reliance on the following Judgment:
Rajkumar Gurwara (dead) through LRS Vs. S.K.Sarwagi and Company Pvt. Ltd.,1 1 (2008) 14 SCC 364 8 SK,J
13. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that, initially petitioners Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed a suit vide O.S.No.65 of 2013 against the respondents/defendants for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, recovery of possession and also for cancellation of registered Sale Deed No.1095/2010 dated 01.04.2010, and also for rectification of records in respect of plaint A, B and C schedule properties in the said suit. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have died, thereafter the legal heirs of the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 brought on record and the plaint was amended accordingly. After closure of the evidence of both sides, both sides have advanced arguments and the suit posted for reply arguments of the petitioners/plaintiffs. At that stage, the petitioners have filed four petitions, i.e. amendment of prayer in the plaint, receive the documents, recall of PW1 and to reopen the evidence. All the petitions filed by the 9 SK,J petitioners were dismissed by the trial Court its by orders dated 17.07.2025.
14. The trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint, on the ground that the amendment sought by the petitioners could have raised at the earliest stage, before commencement of trial and further observed that the amendment was sought against the statutory principles. The petition filed for receiving documents was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to plead about the said document and as the document sought to be marked i.e. unregistered, unstamped sale deed, is invalid as per Section Act 17 of the Registration Act. As the receiving of additional documents and amendment of prayer were dismissed, the rest of the two petitions filed for reopen and recall of the evidence of PW1 for the purpose of marking the documents, were also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the instant Civil Revision Petitions. 10
SK,J
15. In so far as the amendment of the prayer of the plaint is concerned, the contention of the petitioners is that due to typographical mistake, it was wrongly mentioned as A to C Schedule properties, instead of A and C schedule properties for perpetual injunction, and cancellation of registered sale deed executed by the respondents/defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of respondents/defendant Nos.5 to 7 and also for recovery of possession for B-Schedule property.
16. The prayer of I.A.No.199 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013, filed for amendment, reads as follows:
" At the place of prayer portion in i) add as i a) :
That a decree be passed for Recovery of possession in respect of 'B" Schedule property by evicting the defendants 5 to 7 by deleting the "B" Schedule property".
17. As per Order-VI, Rule-17, after adducing evidence, no amendments can be permitted. Rule, 17 of Order-VI C.P.C reads as:
17. Amendment of pleadings.-
The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party o alter or amend his pleadings in 11 SK,J such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court conies to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial".
18. The contention of the petitioners is that at the time of filing of the suit, due to typographical mistake in the prayer portion and wrongly mentioned as "A,B and C" Schedule properties, instead of A & C Schedule properties for perpetual injunction and seeking for recovery of possession in respect of B-Schedule property. Now, the petitioners wanted to delete the 'B' Schedule property in the prayer of the plaint for injunction and wanted to add the said B-Schedule property 'as recovery of possession'.
19. Para No.7 of the plaint, filed by the petitioners in the suit, read as follows:
12
SK,J " ...... defendants 1 to 7, who are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and by taking advantage of nominal, bogus, forced documents are trying to interfere with the A,B and C schedule lands on 19.03.2013 in order to occupy the lands of the plaintiffs illegally with the support of the unsocial elements, by creating the ownership in the revenue records, by knowingfully the subject matter of ROR appeal is pending before the RDO, Bhongir and they re trying to alienate the Schedule 'B" land as such the said documents are false, fabricated, fabricated, forged and bogus documents, which is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs", Para No.8 of the plaint reads as under:
That the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the suit 'A',B and C' schedule lands, that there is no similarity suit is pending in any other court except this suit in respect of A,B and C Schedule lands".
20. A perusal of the pleadings of plaint shows that the petitioners are in possession of A, B and C schedule properties and sought injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession over 13 SK,J A,B and C lands. Now, the petitioners are stating that due to typographical mistake, wrongly mentioned in the prayer portion as 'A to C' schedule properties instead of 'A and C" schedule properties for perpetual injunction and recovery of possession in respect of B-Schedule properties.
21. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents in Rajkumar Garuwaraa (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the instant cases.
22. The trial Court, relying on the Judgment in Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and others, arising out of a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30324/2019, rightly observed that no application for amendment shall be 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 trial. The trial Court rightly held that if the amendment is permitted the nature of the 14 SK,J suit will changes and the petition filed for the amendment of prayer was dismissed and there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition warranting to interference of this Court in the orders passed in I.A.No.199/2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013.
23. Admittedly, the document, which is sought to be marked by the petitioners/plaintiffs was a simple sale deed executed by the petitioner No.1 in favour of the petitioner No.2, dated 12.04.1996 and the amendment register for the year 1996-97. The trial court rightly held that an ordinary sale deed, which is unstamped and unregistered, is not valid as per Section 17 of the Registration Act and 35 of the Stamps Act. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court in refusing to receive additional documents does not call for any interference by this Court.
24. The petitioners/plaintiffs failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in proviso to Order-VI, Rule-17 and all the relevant aspects have been duly considered 15 SK,J by the trial Court and rightly dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petitions, warranting any interference of this Court.
25. In view of the above findings, the orders passed in I.A.No.199/2025 in O.S.No.65/2013, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, for amendment of prayer, needs no interference and accordingly C.R.P.No.2826 of 2025 is liable to be dismissed.
26. The orders passed in I.A.No.200/2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2013 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, for receiving the documents also needs no interference and accordingly C.R.P.No.2858 of 2025 is liable to be dismissed.
27. In view of dismissal of C.R.P.Nos.2826 and 2858 of 2025 for amendment of prayer and receiving of documents respectively, the orders passed in I.A.Nos.201 of 2025 and 202 of 2025 in O.S.65 of 2025 16 SK,J on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuvanagiri, for reopening the evidence and recalling of PW1, does not arise, and accordingly, C.R.P.Nos. 2898 and 2837 of 2025 are liable to be dismissed.
28. Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date:12.09.2025 trr