IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2475 OF 2008 Between: Kolla Sambasivarao ......petitioner AND Gunda Sambasivarao and another ......Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2475 OF 2008 ORDER: The plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 2003 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, has approached this Court, aggrieved by the order of the said trial Court disallowing his application for amendment as proposed in I.A.No.875 of 2007. The petitioner has filed a suit for injunction and while the said suit was at the stage of filing of chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW.1, the present application seeking amendment was filed on 24.07.2007. The prayer in the proposed amendment is as follows: Add the following after the word Sattenpalli road in para No.3 of the plaint that “except the passage which is situated to the west of the plaintiff’s house there is no other way to the plaintiff to reach Narasaraopet- Sattenapalli road and he prescribed his right in the said passage by way of easement of necessity.” The impugned order of the Court below had disallowed the said prayer on the ground that in view of affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW.1 having already filed, the trial is deemed to have commenced and the amendment application cannot be entertained. The trial Court was also of the view that the proposed amendment changes the nature of the suit and consequently disallowed the amendment. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. I have examined the impugned order as well as the proposed amendment, which is extracted above, I am unable to subscribe to the view of the trial Court that the said amendment changes the nature of the suit. The suit being one for injunction continues to be as such and the proposed amendment as extracted above is only clarificatory in nature which adds an additional ground in support of the plaint allegations. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff seeks to claim that there is no other access to his property other than the passage in question and as such an additional legal ground in support of the relief of injunction sought for is now introduced in the plaint. The trial in the suit obviously has not yet commenced inasmuch as only affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW.1 is filed. Therefore, there is no impediment as to why the said amendment cannot be allowed. The impugned order therefore is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The revision is allowed and the petitioner’s application I.A.No.875 of 2007 shall stand allowed as prayed for. In view of the amendment application being allowed the defendants shall have opportunity to file amendment additional written statement, if any, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, trial Court shall seek to determine the suit in accordance with law expeditiously before end of October, 2010. No costs. ______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 17.06.2010 Ivd