THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.316 of 2009 DATED:10-03-2010 Between: Konduri Krishnaiah & 3 others. … Petitioners And Konduri Papaiah & 9 others. … Respondents ORDER: The application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected and hence they approached this Court and filed the prevision Civil Revision Petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners initially instituted O.S.No.12 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool seeking declaration of their title and perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, they filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint for adding the relief ‘recovery of possession’ also. Thereafter, when the entire evidence was over and the suit is coming up for arguments, petitioners filed the present application, I.A.No.371 of 2008 seeking further amendment of the plaint stating that the respondents i.e., the defendants in the suit are in illegal possession of the suit schedule property and as such, they are entitled for mesne profits. As the said application seeking mesne profits is from 2001 onwards, the Court below refused to entertain the said application on the ground that any application claiming mesne profits shall be only for a period of three years but not beyond three years. As stated supra, as against the said order of dismissal, dated 07-01-2009, this revision has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 4. The facts are not in dispute. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Court instead of rejecting the entire claim ought to have restricted it to three years. Of course, it is true that the suit is ripe for arguments and on earlier occasions also petitioners filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint and the said amendment was ordered, but it should be remembered that the petitioners were constrained to file the said application seeking amendment for the reason that they were dispossessed from out of the shops in question and as such, it necessitated them to file the said application. 5. From the above, it cannot be said that the petitioners are unnecessarily trying to drag on or protract the litigation. It is the petitioners-plaintiffs who instituted the said suit and if ultimately the suit is delayed, it is they who suffer irreparable loss, but at the same time, the respondents are also put to unnecessary inconvenience by these applications. By virtue of the present amendment, again the suit has to be reopened and further evidence has to be let in etc., In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should also be penalized. Accordingly, while setting aside the order impugned in this revision, this Court directs the Court below to amend the plaint by adding paragraph (e) i.e., with regard to mesne profits. However, the same shall be restricted to three years. After the said amendment, respondents shall be given opportunity to file additional written statement, if they so choose, and further petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- ( rupees five thousand only) in favour of the District Legal Services Authority at Mahabubnagar District, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 10th March, 2010. Tsy