THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.R.P.No. 4871 of 2010. ORDER: With the consent of both the Counsel, the C.R.P. itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. I have heard the learned Counsel on either side. The revision petitioners filed O.S.No. 98 of 2004 on the file of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from making any construction in the suit schedule property. Pending suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who submitted his report stating that the respondent No.1 made construction encroaching 2 feet on southern side of 5 feet rastha towards north in excess of the extent mentioned in the registered sale deed. Basing on the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No. 619 of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint to the effect that to declare that the respondent No.1 constructed her house by encroaching 2 feet rastha on 5 feet road towards north in excess of the extent mentioned in the registered sale deed and to issue mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment. The learned trial court having made an enquiry into the amendment petition, passed the impugned order holding that unless evidence is let in by both sides it cannot be decided whether the 1st respondent encroached the rastha and if any decision on the point would amount predetermination of the said issue and directed the petition to be posted along with the suit and ordered for trial of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, the present revision petition is filed. The approach adopted by the trial court is totally erroneous. Without deciding the amendment petition, the trial court shall not proceed with the trial of the suit and ignoring the said fact, the impugned order was passed, which is ex facie illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order under revision is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to dispose of the amendment petition on merits and pass appropriate orders whether amendment can be allowed or not. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 15.12.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.R.P.No. 4871 of 2010. ORDER: Dt. 15.12.2010.