Jillillamudi ( Rama ) Deepthi Vs Mupparaju Veeraiah

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 to beg to present the above revision questioning the order in I.A. No. 679 /2021 in O.S. No 252 /20J4dated 10.04.2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole.

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

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. 252/2014 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole pending disposal of the above Revision petition and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

1.VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.MADHAVA RAO NALLURI

¶30

The Court made the following order:

¶31

Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and Ms G. Mounika, learned counsel for Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

The plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision assailing the order dated 10.04.2024 in I.A.No.679 of 2021 in O.S.No.252 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ongole.

¶33

Pending the revision, due to the constitution of the new Court at Singarayakonda, the suit, O.S.No.252 of 2014, was transferred to the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Singarayakonda.

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.252 of 2014 seeking perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs instituted the suit based on the title deed pass book bearing No.H 395606 under (Khata) No.699 and the order dated 31.01.1977 in C.C.Nos.416 and 417 of 1975 on the file of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ongole. The schedule of the property is mentioned as Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.100/2, bounded by East: Land with Tobacco Barn of Uppugunduri Chakrapani; South: Land with Tobacco Barn of Rama Bala Kottaiah; West: Own Land (Passage) of Rama Brahmaiah (plaintiff) and North: Road leading to Marlapadu.

¶36

Pending the suit, the sole plaintiff died, and his legal representatives were brought on record. Thereafter, the legal representatives filed I.A.No.679 of 2021 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the survey number in the plaint schedule. They also sought certain amendments to the rough sketch filed along with the plaint. The defendants filed a counter opposing the application. The trial Court, by an order dated 10.04.2024, dismissed the application.

¶37

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that mentioning of Sy.No.100/2 instead of Sy.No.97/2 is a mistake. The boundaries and the extent remain the same. He would further submit that the trial Court failed to consider the same.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial Court and would submit that the claim of the sole plaintiff is based on the two documents attached to the plaint. As per the documents, the survey number is Sy.No.100/2. In fact, the deceased 1^st plaintiff was cross-examined. The legal representatives cannot take a different stand from that of the original plaint.

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

8. The point for consideration is:

¶41

Whether the order dated 10.04.2024 in I.A.No.679 of 2021 in O.S.No.252 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Singarayakonda, suffers from any illegality?

¶42

The plaintiffs contended that the survey number was wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.100/2 instead of Sy.No.97/2. According to them, the boundaries and the extent remain the same. However, in the title deed passbook and the order in C.C.Nos.416 and 417 of 1975, which were marked during the crossexamination of P.W.1, the survey number is shown as Sy.No.100/2. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 specifically deposed to those facts. The trial Court recorded a finding that the proposed amendment would change the topography of the property. The trial Court further observed that the amendment would change the entire case originally filed by the deceased plaintiff. Thus, the trial Court considered all these aspects and passed a reasoned order.

¶43

In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law. This Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Art 227 of the Constitution of India, normally will not act as an appellate Court and substitute its opinion, unless the order under revision suffers from such an illegality. Hence, this Court doesn’t find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 10.04.2024 in I.A.No.679 of 2021 in O.S.No.252 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Singarayakonda.

¶44

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Since the suit is of the year 2014, the learned trial Court shall expedite disposal of the suit in view of the circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/ 2022, dated 23.11.2022 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law.

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

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

¶48

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶49

Dated: 21.07.2026 SNI

¶50

Page 6 of 6

¶51

149