Akkiraju Panduranga Rao vs Gundlapally Ranga Rao

2026 INSC 428 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026 (@ SLP(C) NOS.17491-17492/2023)

AKKIRAJU PANDURANGA RAO & ANR. Appellants

VERSUS

GUNDLAPALLY RANGA RAO Respondent

J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2023

passed in Civil Revision Petition No.411/2023 and Civil

Revision Petition No.417/2023 by the High Court for the

State of Telangana at Hyderabad, the appellants are

before this Court.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

the appellants herein are the owners in possession

Signature Not Verified of agricultural land in Sy Nos.19/2 and 18/5 to an Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA

extent of Ac.2-75 cents and Ac.0-71 cents Date: 2026.04.29 09:52:45 IST Reason:

1

respectively, totally admeasuring Ac.3-49 cents

situated at Nadigudem village and mandal, Nalgonda

District (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit

property’). The respondent herein, having his land

on the northern boundary of the suit property,

allegedly started causing interference with the

appellants’ possession.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed a

suit bearing O.S. No.52/2016 before the Principal

Junior Civil Judge at Kodad, Telangana (hereinafter

referred to as ‘trial court’), for permanent

injunction restraining the respondent and his agents

from causing interference with the possession of the

appellants over the suit property. Along with the

aforesaid suit, an application bearing I.A. No.

230/2016 was filed by the appellants, seeking ex

parte temporary injunction against the respondent,

which was allowed by the trial court.

5. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed an

application being I.A. No.719/2016 in I.A.

No.230/2016 seeking appointment of an Advocate

2 Commissioner to make note of the physical features

of the scheduled lands in view of the dispute with

regard to its nature and boundaries. Trial Court,

by docket order dated 07.02.2017, allowed the

application filed by the respondent and appointed an

Advocate Commissioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid

order, appellants preferred a civil revision

petition bearing C.R.P. No.861/2017 before the High

Court, which was dismissed vide order dated

14.07.2017.

6. Meanwhile, the appellants preferred I.A.

No.229/2017 in O.S. No.52/2016 under Order VI Rule

17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (for short, ‘CPC;), seeking amendment of the

plaint schedule boundaries, contending that due to

an inadvertent error, the boundaries of Sy No.18/5

had not been mentioned. The trial court, by order

dated 28.03.2019, permitted the appellants to amend

the plaint schedule boundaries by incorporating the

boundaries to both survey numbers as prayed for.

3

7. Subsequently, another application bearing I.A.

No.515/2022 was filed by the appellants in I.A.

No.230/2016 in O.S. No.52/2016, seeking amendment of

the plaint schedule boundaries in the application

for temporary injunction. Having regard to the

earlier order dated 28.03.2019 passed in I.A.

No.229/2017, whereby amendment of schedule

boundaries in the plaint was allowed, the trial

court, by order 20.12.2022, also allowed the

amendment of the plaint schedule boundaries in the

application seeking temporary injunction, i.e., in

I.A. No. 230/2016.

8. Aggrieved by the orders dated 28.03.2019 and

20.12.2022 passed by the trial court, respondent

preferred revision petitions bearing CRP Nos.411 and

417 of 2023 before the High Court. By way of the

impugned order dated 12.06.2023, the High Court

allowed the aforesaid revision petitions and set

aside the orders dated 28.03.2019 and 20.12.2022

passed by the trial court in I.A. No.229/2017 and

I.A. No.515/2022 respectively; whereby the

4 appellants were permitted to amend the plaint

schedule boundaries. It was held that the amendment

sought by the appellants, if allowed, would change

the nature of the properties and would give rise to

a new cause of action. Moreover, the Court observed

that the amendment sought by the appellants did not

appear to be bona fide and even otherwise, it was

always open for the appellants to withdraw the suit

and file a fresh suit with the necessary amendments

to the suit property.

9. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred

the instant civil appeals before this Court.

10. We have heard learned senior counsel for the

appellants and learned senior counsel/learned counsel

for the respondent at length. We have perused the

material on record.

11. The appellants in the present case had filed I.A.

No. 229/2017 in O.S. No. 52/2016 before the trial court,

seeking amendment of the plaint schedule boundaries

contending that due to an inadvertent error the

boundaries of Sy No. 19/2 alone were mentioned, but the

5 boundaries of Sy No. 18/5 had not been mentioned. The

said mistake in non-mentioning of the boundaries in the

latter suit property was realised only after the filing

of the written statement by the respondent.

12. The trial court, by order dated 28.03.2019, allowed

the said application for amendment since erroneous

boundaries were mentioned with respect to the suit lands.

It was further observed that by merely allowing the said

application for amendment would not cause any prejudice

to the respondent herein, as he will have an opportunity

to file an additional counter and additional written

statement and he has also done so.

13. The High Court however has set aside the order of

the trial court permitting amendment of the plaint on

the ground that the amendment sought by the appellants

would change the nature of the property and would

introduce a new cause of action. Moreover, it was held

that the application seeking amendment was preferred by

the appellants only after the respondent had filed his

written statement wherein he has stated that the schedule

given by the appellants for the suit survey numbers was

not correct inasmuch as the agricultural land in the

6 said survey numbers were not in one compact block but

were separated by a stream. In view of the above, the

High Court observed that the application filed by the

appellants seeking amendment of suit schedule property

appeared not to be bona fide.

14. At this stage, we find it appropriate to refer to

Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC which provides for the

amendment of pleadings. The relevant Rule is extracted

as hereunder:

“ORDER VI Pleadings generally

17. Amendment of pleadings.— The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in 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 questions in controversy between the parties: Provided 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.”

15. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Rule, it is

clear that the courts have a discretion to allow all

amendments that may be necessary for determining the

real question in controversy between the parties,

provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the

other side.

7

16. Therefore, the points of consideration as also

noted by the High Court in its impugned order, for

deciding an application for amendment, are reiterated as

under:

Firstly, whether the amendment is necessary for

the determination of the real question in

controversy? and

Secondly, can the amendment be allowed without

injustice to the other side?

17. It is a settled position of law that while deciding

an application seeking amendment of pleadings, courts

should not delve into the technicalities of law; rather,

a liberal approach should be followed, inasmuch as the

object and purpose of allowing amendment in the pleadings

is to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

18. In the present case, the appellants sought for an

amendment of the suit schedule property on the ground

that due to an inadvertent error, the boundary of Sy No.

18/5 was not mentioned. The trial court rightly allowed

the application seeking amendment of the suit property

in a suit for permanent injunction, inasmuch as the same

was necessary for the determination of the real question

8 in controversy, one of them being whether the appellants

were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction

against the respondent with respect to the suit property.

19. It is also pertinent to note that the application

seeking amendment was preferred by the appellants,

although after the filing of the written statement by

the respondent, but before the commencement of the trial.

We therefore find that the trial court, by allowing the

said application, had rightly held that no prejudice

would be caused to the respondent, as he would have an

opportunity to file an additional counter and additional

written statement.

20. We find that the High Court was not right in setting

aside the orders passed by the Trial Court dated

28.03.2019 in I.A. No.229/2017 and 20.12.2022 in I.A.

No.515/2022 in I.A. No.230/2016 in O.S. No.52/2016.

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the

aforesaid orders passed by the Trial Court are restored.

The amendment sought for by the appellants herein is

consequently allowed.

21. It is needless to observe that the suit shall be

adjudicated and disposed of in accordance with law.

9

22. These appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

23. The parties to bear their respective costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

………………………………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

………………………………………………………J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 16, 2026

10