Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 982 (TS)

Madati Srinivasa Reddy v. Venishetty Shashider

2025-09-04

N.TUKARAMJI

body2025
ORDER : N. TUKARAMJI, J. Assailing the propriety of the decree and order dated 12.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 152 of 2025 in O.S. No. 86 of 2011 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 2. The revision petitioners, who are also the plaintiffs in the suit, filed I.A. No. 152 of 2025 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint. 3. Heard Mr. P. Rajagopal Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and M/s. C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents. 4.1. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondent/defendant originally instituted O.S. No. 886 of 2011 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, namely, dry land admeasuring Ac. 5.00 guntas in Survey No. 858/D, situated at Keshavapatnam Village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’). During the stage of cross-examination of P.W.1, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint, praying for inclusion of an additional relief of declaration of title over the subject land, together with recovery of vacant possession. 4.2. The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and the nature of the amendment sought, held that the proposed amendment was essential to facilitate effective adjudication of the real controversy between the parties and to obviate the risk of conflicting decisions. Consequently, the Court allowed the application for amendment. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants/respondents have preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 5.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contends that the trial Court committed a serious error in permitting amendment of the plaint after an inordinate lapse of 14 years, without appreciating that the relief of declaration of title had long since become barred by limitation. It is urged that, as per settled principles of law, amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial ought not to be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates due diligence, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. Counsel further submits that the plea of the plaintiffs/respondents, namely, that they became aware of the alleged occupation of the subject land by the defendants/revision petitioners only at a later stage, is wholly untenable. Counsel further submits that the plea of the plaintiffs/respondents, namely, that they became aware of the alleged occupation of the subject land by the defendants/revision petitioners only at a later stage, is wholly untenable. This is because the written statement filed as early as 2011 explicitly disclosed the defendants’ claim of title and possession over the subject land. Despite such knowledge, the plaintiffs remained silent for nearly 14 years and sought amendment only in 2025, long after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. It is therefore argued that rights which accrued in favour of the revision petitioners over the intervening period would be seriously prejudiced by allowing the amendment. 5.2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L.C. Hanumanthappa (since deceased) by L.Rs. v. H.B. Shivakumar, (2016) 1 SCC 332 , wherein it was held that an amendment introducing a relief that is already barred by limitation as on the date of the application is impermissible. On these grounds, intervention of this Court is sought. 6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that at the time of institution of the original suit, and until discovery of the defendants’ illegal occupation of the subject land, a prayer for perpetual injunction was adequate. However, upon subsequently becoming aware of the defendants’ possession over the subject land, it became necessary to seek comprehensive relief by way of declaration of title, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction. It is argued that the amendment was occasioned by changed circumstances and was filed immediately upon discovery of the relevant facts. Counsel further submits that there is no prescribed period of limitation for seeking amendment of pleadings; on the contrary, it is well settled that amendments may be permitted even at the stage of second appeal, provided they are necessary for complete adjudication. 6.2. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others v. Subhash , 2025 (1) ALT SC 28, wherein it was held that amendments to the plaint are intended to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and may be allowed at any stage, including execution, if required for comprehensive adjudication. 6.3. It is thus contended that, since the cause of action for amendment arose only upon discovery of the defendants’ illegal possession, and the application was filed promptly thereafter, the plea of limitation advanced by the revision petitioners is misconceived. 6.3. It is thus contended that, since the cause of action for amendment arose only upon discovery of the defendants’ illegal possession, and the application was filed promptly thereafter, the plea of limitation advanced by the revision petitioners is misconceived. Counsel further submits that the plaintiffs have been diligently prosecuting the suit and that permitting the amendment would enable a full and final adjudication of all disputes, thereby preventing multiplicity of litigation. In light of these circumstances, and in conformity with settled judicial principles, it is urged that the trial Court rightly allowed the application. Accordingly, the challenge raised by the revision petitioners/defendants is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 7. In the above rival pleadings, the issues fall for consideration as to: i. Whether the amendment sought for by the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation? ii. Whether the plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of due diligence under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. iii. Whether the trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction allowing the petition to ensure complete adjudication of the dispute. 8. Point No. 1: Article 58 of the Limitation Act , 1963 prescribes a limitation period of three years for seeking declaratory relief, reckoned from the date on which the right to sue first accrues. The accrual of such right arises not merely upon the existence of a dispute, but only when there is a clear, unequivocal, and effective threat to a party’s legal right. This principle has been reiterated in Nikhila Divyang Mehta and Another v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Others, 2025 INSC 485 . 9. It is equally well settled that the issue of limitation is ordinarily to be adjudicated at the stage of trial, and not at the stage of considering an application for amendment of pleadings, since it involves a mixed question of fact and law. In Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu , (2002) 7 SCC 559 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that an amendment to pleadings can be permitted even if it potentially introduces a relief that may be time-barred, because the defence of limitation remains open for adjudication during trial. Therefore, permitting an amendment does not, ipso facto, validate a claim that may otherwise be barred; it merely ensures that the controversy is fully brought before the Court, with the limitation defence left to be determined on merits at trial. 10. Therefore, permitting an amendment does not, ipso facto, validate a claim that may otherwise be barred; it merely ensures that the controversy is fully brought before the Court, with the limitation defence left to be determined on merits at trial. 10. Point No. 2: With respect to the requirement of due diligence, the plaintiffs contend that they became aware of the defendants’ unlawful occupation of the suit property only subsequently, which necessitated the present amendment. The defendants, however, argue that their plea of possession was clearly raised in the written statement filed in 2011, and therefore the plaintiffs cannot feign ignorance. 11. This dispute essentially hinges on the factual question of when the plaintiffs gained actual or constructive knowledge of the defendants’ alleged illegal possession. Such matters are evidentiary in nature and can only be conclusively determined at trial. At the amendment stage, Courts are guided by a liberal approach, ensuring that parties are not precluded from presenting their complete case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that technical objections should not preclude the Court from allowing an amendment where it is necessary to advance the cause of substantive justice. 12. Point No. 3: The object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 is to enable the Court to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanasamy and Sons , (2009) 10 SCC 84 , the Supreme Court laid down guiding principles, emphasizing that amendments should ordinarily be allowed where they: (i) prevent multiplicity of proceedings; (ii) facilitate comprehensive adjudication; and (iii) do not cause prejudice that cannot be compensated in costs. 13. Similarly, in Bimla Devi and Others v. Subhash , 2025 (1) ALT SC 28, it was held that amendments necessary for effective adjudication should not be rejected merely on technical grounds. 14. In the present case, refusal of the amendment would compel the plaintiffs to institute a separate suit for declaration and recovery of possession, resulting in parallel proceedings, possible inconsistencies in findings, and unnecessary multiplicity of litigation. The trial Court, therefore, rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment so that the entire dispute could be comprehensively adjudicated in a single proceeding. 15. The trial Court, therefore, rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment so that the entire dispute could be comprehensively adjudicated in a single proceeding. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court exercised its discretion judicially and in consonance with settled principles of law. The proposed amendment neither alters the fundamental character of the suit nor introduces a wholly new cause of action. Issues relating to limitation, maintainability, and due diligence remain open for adjudication at trial, where they can be determined on merits. 16. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 12.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 152 of 2025 in O.S. No. 86 of 2011 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Huzurabad. The trial Court shall carry out the amendment and proceed to adjudicate the suit comprehensively, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, and shall dispose of the matter expeditiously. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shall stand closed.