HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.1404 of 2009 Dated 22-11-2010 Between: Smt. Kambaham Varalakshmi. …Petitioner. And: Dangeti Rama Mohana Rao. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.1404 of 2009 ORDER: This is a plaintiff’s revision arising out of the suit for injunction. Plaintiff now seeks amendment of the plaint to seek relief with respect to mandatory injunction with respect to the wall which is allegedly constructed by defendant pending the suit. Plaintiff therefore seeks additional relief of mandatory injunction. The said application was dismissed by the Court below under the impugned order on the ground that the application relates to new facts and new cause of action and is an attempt to delay the litigation. This Court ordered notice and admitted the revision and granted interim stay on 26-3-2009 while the stay is continued thereafter. The respondent has now appeared and is represented by the learned counsel. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the respondent states that there is already a report of advocate commissioner which indicates the boundary between the two houses and it is contended that the constructions made by the defendants are within his property. Present application is resisted by the learned counsel on the ground that it is belated with a view to prolong the suit. It is to be noted that the additional relief which is sought by the petitioner on the basis of subsequent events is in any case required to be taken into consideration by the Court. The amendment sought for even if allowed will have to be established. It is for the plaintiff to establish her entitlement for the said relief. Mere allowing of application therefore would not cause any prejudice to the defendant. When the petitioner’s allegation is that the said amendment is necessitated on account of subsequent events pending the suit, I am unable to appreciate the reasoning of the Court below, as the purpose of the order 6 rule 17 CPC being to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the additional relief which the plaintiff now seeks could have been allowed. Of course, plaintiff has to establish his entitlement to the original relief as well as the relief now sought for by amendment and the defendant’s interests are well protected by permitting the defendant to file additional written statement if he so chooses. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the revision is allowed. I.A.No.935 of 2008 shall stand allowed subject to the petitioner paying the Court fees and complying with the other requirement by filing the amended plaint etc., Defendant shall also have liberty to file additional written statement. Since it is a suit of 2005, the trial Court shall fix trial of the suit on day to day basis and dispose of the suit on merits preferably before 31st March, 2011. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. __________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 22-11-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.1404 of 2009 Dated 22-11-2010