HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No :2547 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 9.4.2010 in I.A. No. 270 of 2010 in O.S. No.240 of 2006 on the file of the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby the learned judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for permitting him to carry out certain amendments to the plaint. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed the suit in O.S. No. 240 of 2006 seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In that suit, she filed I.A. No. 270 of 2010 under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. read with Section 28 of C.P.C. to permit her to carry out the proposed and consequential amendments to the plaint. It is the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, her tenant committed default in payment of rent and even though he admitted his liability, he used to postpone the same on one pretext or other. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and thereafter filed the suit in O.S. No. 670/08 before VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking eviction of the tenant. In the said suit, her tenant filed written statement denying the various averments made by the petitioner. Subsequently, she came to know that the 2nd respondent has executed a registered sale deed in favour of her tenant in respect of the suit schedule property without any manner of right and the same is unenforceable. She, therefore, prayed that she may be permitted to carry out the proposed amendments and the consequential amendments. While opposing the said application, the respondents filed counter affidavit stating that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner is trying to bring in new litigation between the petitioner and her tenant, who is not a party to the suit. They further stated that the proposed amendments have nothing to do with the original relief sought for in the suit. Further the petitioner filed the present application at a belated stage with a view to drag on the proceedings. The Court below while taking into consideration the fact the if the proposed amendment is allowed, it would alter the very nature of the suit and also cause much prejudice to the respondents, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proposed amendments would not alter the nature and character of the suit as observed by the Court below and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in the interest of justice the proposed amendments ought to have been allowed by the Court below. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in SAMPATH KUMAR vs. AYYAKANNU & OTHERS([1]) and prayed that the revision be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In Sampath Kumar’s case, the Apex Court has observed thus: “The short question arising for decision is whether it is permissible to convert through amendment a suit merely for permanent prohibitory injunction into suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. It is true that the plaintiff on the averments made in the application for amendment proposes to introduce a cause of action which has arisen to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. According to the defendant the averments made in the application for amendment are factually incorrect and the defendant was not in possession of the property since before the institution of the suit itself. In our opinion, the basic structure of the suit is not altered by the proposed amendment. What is sought to be changed is the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiff. In the opinion of the trial Court it was open to the plaintiff to file a fresh suit and that is one of the reasons which has prevailed with the trial Court and with the High Court, in refusing the prayer for amendment and also in dismissing the plaintiff’s revision. We fail to understand, if it is permissible for the plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of proceedings.” Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. reads as follows: “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 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 the trial.” Though the aforesaid provision contemplates that the proposed amendment shall not be allowed once the trial is commenced, however, in sound exercise of the discretion and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to carry out the proposed amendments. Further, the petitioner, by the proposed amendments is trying to prove that she is the absolute owner of the property and that she leased out the same to the tenant and also seeking for the relief of cancellation of sale deed. In such circumstances, the Court below ought to have allowed the I.A. and permitted the petitioner to carry out the proposed amendment for proper adjudication of the dispute. Therefore, in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sampath Kumar ‘s case(cited supra) and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the proposed amendment is allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. I.A. No. 270 of 2010 stands allowed. The petitioner shall pay additional Court Fee for seeking the relief of cancellation of sale deed. Since the suit is of the year 2006, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 4th February, 2011 pnb [1] 2002 SCC-7 (559)