IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5426 of 2009 Between: Yaragalla Ranga Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Inampudi Bikshalu .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5426 of 2009 O R D E R: Petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.224/2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and to restrain the defendant from making any constructions in front of the plaint schedule property (in road margin) towards northern side of the plaint schedule property thereby installing an idol of any leader. The suit was filed in July 2006. Written statement was filed in October 2006 stating that even before filing of the suit, the idol was installed in the month of March 2006 itself. It is further stated that in fact, the plaintiff also contributed the site along with several others. If that be so, I am of the opinion that the petitioner could have filed any amendment of pleadings, in view of the aforesaid plea taken in the written statement. The petitioner having waited till commencement of the trial which was commenced on 16.07.2007, came up with an application under Or.6 Rules-17 and 28 CPC in the month of June 2009 i.e. two years later after commencement of the trial, seeking amendment of the pleadings. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly dismissed the application on the ground that the trial was already commenced and in fact a plea was taken in the written statement that the idol was installed in the month of March 2006. Any amendment to the pleadings must be made before the commencement of the trial. However, in certain exceptional cases, if the party was not in the knowledge of any fact and that he could not have raised such a plea before the commencement of trial, can file an application for amendment. But in the instant case, even after taking a plea in the written statement as early as in October 2006 itself, no such application has been filed. Therefore, I see no justifiable reasons in seeking amendment of the pleadings. 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: 01.07.2011 Dsr