THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1311 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.205 of 2005 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the respondents, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he is in possession of the property, as on the date of filing of the suit. The respondents filed written statement, denying the possession of the petitioner over the property. The trial of the suit commenced. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2096 of 2008, under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit him to amend the plaint. According to him, he was dispossessed from the suit schedule property, on 28.01.2007, during the pendency of the suit. He wanted to add the prayer, as to recovery of possession of the property. The I.A. was opposed by the respondents. Through its order, dated 12.02.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P. Heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.H.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Smt.V.Dyumani, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Initially, the suit, filed by the petitioner, was the one for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Pleading that during the pendency of the suit he was dispossessed by the respondents, the petitioner filed the I.A., with a prayer to permit him to amend the plaint. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., by making certain observations. It took the view that the nature of the suit would undergo change, in case the amendment is ordered. It hardly needs any mention that, if the amendment, as sought, is ordered, the nature of the suit would change. What is prohibited in law is a change, which is compatible with the original prayer. Another observation made by the trial Court was that the application was filed, long after the written statement was filed by the respondents, pleading that they are in possession of the schedule property. Here again, the observation is untenable. Whether or not a particular party is in possession, would not depend upon mere pleadings, and the same has to be established through evidence. The objection, as to the stage of filing of application, is also equally untenable. As long as the plea is not barred by limitation, the right of the petitioner to seek amendment, cannot be denied. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.2096 of 2008 shall stand allowed. The respondents shall have an opportunity to file additional written statement. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:18.09.2009. Note: Furnish C.C. in four days. (B/o) GJ