THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 1951 of 2011 Oral order: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 6 of 2011 in O.S. No. 316 of 2008, filed by the petitioner praying to permit him to amend the relief in the plaint to the effect of seeking declaration and mandatory injunction. On the ground that the petitioner filed the present application after he filed the affidavit-in-lieu of chief and that as per Amended CPC Act 22 of 2002, amendment cannot be allowed after commencement of trial, the Court below dismissed the same Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order under revision. The petitioner, admittedly, filed the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction. It is his case that in violation of the orders of the Court, during the pendency of the suit, the respondents encroached upon item No.1 of the suit schedule property and constructed steps therein in the month of December, 2009, and therefore, it has become necessary for him to file the present application seeking to permit him to amend the relief in the plaint from that of permanent injunction to mandatory injunction for removal of the steps. There is no doubt that the petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, but the fact remains, he has not been cross-examined yet. As the petitioner is seeking to amend the relief in the plaint, based on subsequent developments that took place during the pendency of the suit, and as it is his specific allegation that the respondents made constructions in item No.1, by encroaching thereinto in violation of the court order, I am of the considered opinion, the petitioner should be permitted to amend the plaint, and more so when no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint, because they would be given opportunity to file amended written statement. This apart, if amendment is permitted at this stage, it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings between the parties in relation to the very same subject-matter, which would be in the interest of both the parties. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below committed an error in refusing to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, the order under revision cannot be sustained, and the same is liable to be set aside. The C.R.P. is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. The Court below shall provide opportunity to the respondents to file amended written statement. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 2nd September, 2011. KSR