Full Judgment Text
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
of agricultural land in Sy Nos.19/2 and 18/5 to an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.29
09:52:45 IST
Reason:
extent of Ac.2-75 cents and Ac.0-71 cents
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