HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.6142 OF 2009 DATE:19-03-2010 BETWEEN: Satyavolu Subrahmanyam Dinakara Prasad & Another. …Petitioners AND Kovvuri Venkata Kanaka Satyanarayana Reddy @ Kovvuri Kanaka Reddy …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.6142 OF 2009 ORDER: Plaintiffs preferred this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the orders of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, dated 28.10.2009 dismissing I.A.No.198 of 2009 in O.S.No.558 of 2007 filed for amendment of the plaint. Plaintiffs-petitioners herein initially laid the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Pending the suit, they filed I.A.No.613 of 2007 for grant of ad interim injunction. On contest, the said I.A. was dismissed holding that the possession of the plaintiffs was not believable. On dismissal of said I.A., the impugned I.A. came to be filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint seeking declaration and possession of the plaint schedule property instead of relief of permanent injunction and also for removing the unauthorized constructions made by the defendants together with future profits thereon. By filing a counter, the defendants-respondents herein contested the impugned I.A. contending that the plaintiffs failed to mention the particulars as to on what date the alleged trespassing by the defendants into the plaint schedule property took place and that they did not file a memo into the Court to that effect at the time of arguments in injunction application, which itself shows that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the property and therefore, they are not entitled to seek amendment of the plaint as sought for. By the order under challenge, the lower Court dismissed the impugned I.A. holding that the plaintiffs-petitioners herein have got knowledge that the defendants-respondents have obtained an ex parte injunction against third parties to the suit proceedings, however, filed the present suit only for mere injunction when the defendants took a plea at the earliest that they got right over the suit schedule property since the date of unregistered sale deed, dated 11.12.1914, possessory agreement of sale, dated 12.08.1924 followed by Will, dated 14.11.1962. It was observed that though I.A.No.613 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for temporary injunction was dismissed after full-fledged enquiry, the petitioners have not preferred any appeal against the said order and the same has become final. In view of the proposition laid down by this Court in Rafiq Ahmed v. Ameed Rafiq (2006 (3) ALD 660) applies to the present case, the lower Court held that the petitioners are not entitled for the amendment of the plaint as sought for. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. Heard Sri P.V. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri CH.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel appearing for second respondent. Perused the material available on record. The findings of the lower Court that the relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession are independent and important which can hardly be treated as a supplementary one, to that of a task for permanent injunction, and that the cause of action for both the reliefs are different, and thereby advising the petitioners that they can file an independent suit for the very relief which they propose to claim in the present suit are erroneous. The amendment of the pleadings sought to be made in the plaint will be altered only to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The specific allegation of the petitioners that during the pendency of enquiry in I.A.No.613 of 2007 in the month of July, 2008, the defendants- respondents herein trespassed into the suit schedule property and created some false documents which resulted in dismissal of I.A.No.613 of 2008 itself gives rise to a cause of action for amendment of the plaint. Therefore, the lower Court fell in error in dismissing the impugned I.A. and if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.198 of 2009 stands allowed. The defendants-respondents herein are at liberty to file additional written statement, if they are so advised. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 19, 2010 Tsr.