IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3394 OF 2009 Between: Kotagasthi Abdul Subahan ..... PETITIONER AND Khajee Sayed Hasan @ Bashu and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3394 of 2009 O R D E R : The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.347 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri. The suit was filed seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. While the trial was in progress the plaintiff filed a petition to implead the defendants 13 to 20 alleging that defendant No.2 executed a registered gift deed in their favour pending the suit. The plaintiff also sought amendment of the plaint to add further relief of mandatory injunction against defendant No.15 alleging that defendant No.15 had constructed a room in the suit property by encroaching upon it. The Court below by order dated 26.06.2009, dismissed the application to the extent of amendment sought by the plaintiff by adding the relief of mandatory injunction against defendant No.15. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. Despite notice, the respondents did not choose to appear. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is apparent that the proposed amendment was rejected only on the ground that the plan filed by the plaintiff was insufficient and did not disclose the specific extent along with its measurements upon which the alleged constructions were made by defendant No.15. On a careful consideration of the material available on record, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that dismissal of the proposed amendment on that ground is unwarranted. In view of the events that took place during the pendency of the suit, having added the defendants 13 to 20 as parties to the suit to meet the interest of justice, the Court below ought to have allowed the proposed amendment as well. Since the amendment does not change the nature of the suit nor it would result in injustice to the defendants in any manner whatsoever, the order under revision to the extent of dismissing the amendment of plaint by adding relief of mandatory injunction against defendant No.15, is hereby set aside and the I.A.No.315 of 2009 in O.S.No.347 of 2001 shall stand allowed in toto. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _____________ Date: 04.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd