THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.NO.2808 OF 2011 ORDER: This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur in I.A.No.99 of 2011 in O.S.No.33 of 2001 dated 23.6.2011. I.A.No.99 of 2011 was filed seeking permission to amend the plaint to include a prayer for declaration of title and delivery of possession in addition to the earlier prayer of mandatory injunction. It is the petitioner’s case before the Court below that the amendment of the plaint was necessitated as the report of the Advocate-Commissioner with his rough sketch showed that there was encroachment by the defendant; his counsel had advised him to get the plaint amended for declaration of title and delivery of possession for effective relief of adjudication; and, if he was not allowed to amend the plaint, he would be put to irreparable loss. Before the court below, the respondents herein contended that in the suit filed in the year 2001 only the relief for mandatory injunction was sought; at the first instance they had taken the plea in the written statement that the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be sought for without a prayer for declaration of title; even thereafter the petitioners did not get their plaint amended; trial commenced thereafter; evidence was recorded on both sides; arguments were also heard; written arguments were submitted by both advocates; and at this juncture an application for amendment was filed only to delay the matter. The respondents also contended that the amendment was barred by limitation, and was only filed to fill up the lacunae; and by amendment the very nature of the suit would be changed thereby causing prejudice to them. The Court below held that the suit is of the year 2001; both parties had submitted their written arguments; the defendants in their written statements had taken a specific plea that the suit was not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title; the plaintiff was, therefore, aware of the nature of the plaint and the prayer when the defendants filed their written statement on 4.1.2002 nearly nine years ago; trial had commenced and was completed two years ago; even after a written statement was filed, the petitioners did not take any steps to have the plaint amended; they were not diligent and had slept over the matter; and, as such, they should not be permitted to amend the plaint as both the nature of the suit and the cause of action would change. Sri S. Subba Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on Revajeetu Builders v. Narayanaswamy and Sons[1] wherein the Supreme Court laid down certain principles to be taken into consideration in allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. The test laid down therein are : (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. The amendment sought for is more than a decade after the suit was filed. As noted by the Court below, the petitioners were well aware of the lacunae in their plaint when the respondents – defendants specifically pleaded in their written statement that the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be sought without a prayer for declaration of title. As noted in the order of the Court below the written statement was filed on 4.1.2002, and it is more than 9 years thereafter that the amendment was sought. No reasons are given for the inordinate delay in seeking the amendment. Inordinate delay of nine years; arguments having been completed and only judgment being required to be pronounced in the suit; such amendment would result in a change in the nature and cause of action of the suit; and this would further delay the proceedings; are sufficient grounds for the Court below to refuse permission to amend the prayer in the suit. The order of the Court below does not suffer from any such patent illegality necessitating interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I see no reason, therefore, to entertain this revision petition. The C.R.P. fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________ 09-09-2011 Asp [1] (2009) 10 SCC 84