IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1 9 8 OF 2007 Between: Tamada Rama Rao & Anr. … Petitioners V/s. Gedela Himavathi & 2-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A. Ravi Shankar Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M.V. Suresh THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA * * * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.198 OF 2007 O R D E R : Heard the counsel. 2. Sri A. Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel representing the petitioners would maintain that the learned Junior Civil Judge failed to take note that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the plaint is amended for recovery of possession. 3. The learned counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the order under challenge and would maintain that virtually merits and demerits had gone into at the stage of deciding amendment application and this course adopted by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta, cannot be sustained. 4. On the contrary, Sri M.V.Suresh, the learned counsel representing the respondents had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the order under challenge and would maintain that the learned Judge infact referred to the relevant portions of the pleadings and also relied on several decisions and ultimately came to the conclusion that serious prejudice would be caused to the respondents in the Civil Revision Petition if the application to be allowed. The learned counsel further pointed that there is abnormal delay in filing the application and it is belated application. 5. Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioners as well as the learned counsel representing the respondents. Perused the impugned order and the respective stands taken by the parties and the reasons recorded by the learned Judge. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that all these questions had been answered while deciding the application praying for amendment under Order-VI, Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be gone into at the appropriate stage. This Court is of the opinion that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it may be just and proper to permit the petitioners to amend the plaint. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is hereby allowed. No costs. However, it is made clear that the question of bar of limitation be permitted to be adjudicated at the appropriate stage. 7. With the aforesaid liberty, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. The respondents are also at liberty to make a request for framing a specific issue on the question of limitation as well, if they are so advised. __________________________ JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA. 18-06-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1 9 8 OF 2007 Circulation Entry No. 4 8 Date: 18-06-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L