THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.6049 and 6219 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: In both the Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioner herein is the same plaintiff and, therefore, they are being disposed of together. C.R.P.No.6219 of 2009 is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 10- 11-2009, passed in I.A.No.396 of 2009 in O.S.No.280 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC, seeking permission to amend the plaint for relief of declaration of his right and title to the suit schedule property, was dismissed, whereas C.R.P.No.6049 of 2009 is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 10-11-2009, passed in I.A.No.395 of 2009 in O.S.No.280 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda, wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking impleadment of the 3rd party, was dismissed. Initially, the suit was filed for permanent injunction. Much after commencement of the trial, the said amendment application in I.A.No.396 of 2009 is filed and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below had rightly dismissed the said application as after commencement of the trial, such amendment application cannot be allowed. However, it is not a case that he could not have filed such an application before commencement of the trial. Insofar as I.A.No.395 of 2009 seeking impleadment of the 3rd party is concerned, the court below had rightly dismissed the application holding that the proposed party cannot be impleaded to the suit, since the petitioner sought impleadment of the proposed party to the suit on the sole ground that at the instance of the defendant, the proposed party is trying to interfere with his possession, which is definitely a new cause of action, for which the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a separate suit and obtain injunction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 01-07-2010 Prv