HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1041 OF 2011 DATE: 28.03.2011 BETWEEN: Sri Sunkara Pydithalli and another .. Petitioners AND Sri Gottimukkala Venkata Satyanarayana Raju and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1041 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in I.A.No.953 of 2010 in O.S.No.260 of 2007. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for simple injunction in respect of a dry land against the revision petitioners/ defendants. In the written statement, the defendants denied the title of the respondents/plaintiffs over the schedule mentioned land. The respondents/plaintiffs after commencement of trial filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint to permit them to seek the relief of declaration of title. It was mentioned by them in the petition that in view of the denial made by the defendants and to avoid further complications in the litigation, they sought the amendment. The petition was opposed by the revision petitioners/defendants on the ground that the trial has already been commenced and it changes the nature of the suit and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned trial Court rejected the contention put forth by the revision petitioners and allowed the amendment petition and permitted the respondents/plaintiffs to seek relief of declaration of title to the suit land. The revision petition is filed challenging the said order. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that since the trial has been commenced and no sufficient reason has been stated in the amendment petition by the respondents, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the amendment petition and, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. It is mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that in view of the denial of the title they sought the relief of declaration of title and for the said purpose only filed the amendment petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have not assigned any cogent reasons for making the amendment application. Absolutely, there is no force in the contention that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. Merely because an additional relief is asked, the nature of suit will never change. The trial Court, therefore, did not commit any error in allowing the amendment petition. In view of the delay occasioned in filling the amendment petition, the costs imposed by the learned trial Court have been increased to Rs.250/-. The respondents/plaintiffs shall pay the balance amount of costs. The civil revision petition is therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission directing the respondents to pay additional costs to the revision petitioners as indicated above within one month from the date of this order. Date:28.03.2011 __________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1041 OF 2011 DATE: 28.03.2011