IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.395 of 2009 Between: Smt.P.Vasanthamma ..... PETITIONER AND C.Venkatamuni Reddy and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.395 of 2009 O R D E R: Heard. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She filed the suit O.S.112/1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed on 07.03.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed A.S.36/2005 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.157/2006 in A.S.36/2005 under Or.6 Rule-17 CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint for the relief of declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction in November, 2006. It is stated by the petitioner that the suit filed for grant of permanent injunction was dismissed on the ground that the 1st defendant has got right to erect a sunshade and it appears that the 1st defendant also claiming right over the disputed property and therefore, the plaintiff wants to convert the said suit of permanent injunction to that of a suit for declaration of title and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction. A counter has been filed stating that the 1st defendant has got exclusive right over a vacant site in which he has put up a drainage pipe and sunshades projecting his site and the trial Court also observed that the drainage pipes and sunshade were put up prior to filing of the suit. It is stated that the said application filed for amendment of the plaint to that of a suit for declaration of title is barred by limitation and the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the property at any point of time in any capacity and the said defence was taken in the written statement filed by the defendant in 1999 itself, and if the proposed amendment is allowed it would change the very nature and character of the suit and also would cause serious prejudice to the defendant and therefore, amendment of the plaint cannot be allowed. Considering the aforesaid contentions, the lower appellate Court dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Jai Rammohanlal vs. National Building Material Supply[1] wherein the Supreme Court allowed the amendment of the plaint. A perusal of the said judgment goes to show that the amendment that was sought to be made therein was only with regard to name of plaintiff and in those circumstances the Supreme Court held that by the said amendment no prejudice would be caused to anybody and the nature of the suit would not be changed. I am of the opinion that the facts of the said case and the present case are different and hence the said decision is not applicable to the present case. In the instant case, written statement was filed, issues were settled and evidence was adduced, and considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit. At this time, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek amendment of the plaint, that too after 1 ½ years of filing of the appeal before the appellate Court. Therefore, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 28.08.2009 Dsr [1] AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1267(1)