THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.R.P.No.198 of 2010 19th March, 2010 Between :- Syed Riyazuddin @ Raja .. Petitioner And Gundreddy Lakshmi Narayanamma .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.R.P.No.198 of 2010 ORDER:- Heard Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, the learned Counsel representing petitioner and Sri B.S.Reddy, the learned Counsel respondent respondent. 2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved of the order made in I.A.No.118/2009 in O.S.No.38/2008 on the file of the I-Addl. Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C.), Nandyal. 3. The learned Judge after formulating the point for determination observed as hereunder:- “It is apparent from the plaint that the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration of title to the plaint schedule land which is shown as ‘ABCD’ in the plaint plan and also the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching into ‘ABCD’ land. The plaintiff has also sought the further relief of permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from encroaching into “R1 R1 R1 Rastha”. The present petition has been filed claiming that the respondent-defendant has constructed a cell phone tower by encroaching into an extent of Ac.0-08 cents of the petitioner-plaintiff’s land and that consequently the plaint has to be amended to include the relief of mandatory injunction for the removal of the said encroachment. Though the respondent-defendant contends that the construction of the cell phone tower was already completed even prior to the filing of the main suit, the report submitted by the Advocate-Commissioner indicates that the construction of the cell phone tower was completed only on his second visit to the land in question. The contention of the respondent- defendant that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to make a mention of the alleged encroachment either in the plaint or in the cross-examination made by her is also false since the plaintiff has raised this issue during the course of cross- examination of DW.1 The petitioner-plaintiff has already made an allegation in the plaint itself that the respondent- defendant was attempting to encroach into her property. The present petition relates to the allegation regarding the subsequent development of encroachment having been actually made. Therefore in that sense the relief of mandatory injunction as sought by the petitioner-plaintiff is only a continuation of the pleadings already made by her and it does not amount to any change in the basing frame work of the main suit. As per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. the Court is empowered to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings as long as such amendment does snot go against the basic structure of the suit. As has been observed supra, the amendment sought by the petitioner-plaintiff is consistent with the original pleadings made in the plaint. In these circumstances, I do not see any impropriety in allowing this petition.” 4. It is no doubt true that there is some controversy relating to the existence of the Cell Phone Tower. The Counsel for petitioner contends that the same was in existence even prior to the institution of the suit, but the same is put into controversy by the respondent- plaintiff. At the stage of allowing an application for amendment, these aspects need not be gone into. It is needless to say that the parties are at liberty to adduce necessary evidence in this regard. 5. Subject to the above observation, Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 19th March, 2010 smr