IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2582 & 2583 of 2010 CRP.No.2582/2010: Between: C.N.Venugopal ..... PETITIONER AND C.Rajaram Bahadur and another .....RESPONDENTS CRP.No.2583/2010: Between: C.N.Venugopal ..... PETITIONER AND C.Rajaram Bahadur and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2582 & 2583 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in both these civil revision petitions is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.1964/2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.343 and 345/2010 in the said suit seeking to reopen the suit and to amend the plaint. Both the applications have been dismissed by the Court below, against which the present civil revision petitions are filed under Artile-227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the said suit for grant of permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants. In the said suit the evidence on both sides was completed and the suit is posted for arguments and to deliver judgment. At that stage, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the above two applications seeking to reopen the suit and to amend the plaint. The petitioner/plaintiff sought to amend the plaint from permanent injunction to that of declaration stating that the B-schedule property is the absolute property of the petitioner/plaintiff having exclusive right and title over the same etc. I have perused the applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff before the Court below. In I.A.343/2010 the petitioner/plaintiff has not mentioned any particulars of the documents sought to be filed. If the amendment of pleadings as sought for in I.A.345/2010 is allowed, the entire nature of the pleadings would be changed. It cannot be said that the amendment is sought for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. The real question of controversy in the suit is whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction only. It is the case fo the petitioner/plaintiff that during pendency of the suit the wall was constructed and therefore even if the suit is decreed, no useful purpose would be served. Admittedly, no particulars have been furnished in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff about the construction of wall. I am of the opinion that the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled for amendment of the pleadings under Or.6 Rule-17 CPC. I do not find any merit in these two civil revision petitions, and they are accordingly dismissed, but with no costs. However, it is always open for the petitioner/plaintiff to file an application before the Court below seeking to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit for declaration of title. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 09.09.2010 Dsr