THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2055 of 2010 Date: 31.12.2010 Between: Mantripragada Suryanarayana Murthy and another ..... Petitioners AND Byreddi Janikamma and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Sri P. Veera Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.3:-- The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 23.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.162 of 2010 in O.S.No.102 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioners and respondent No.4 are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for declaration of their title over the suit schedule property. On the basis of the pleadings of the rival parties, issues were framed as far back as 23.07.2007. It is the admitted case that the parties went to trial and after completion thereof, the case was coming up for arguments. At this stage the petitioners filed the above noted I.A. seeking reframing of issues by adding an issue relating to non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of unnecessary parties. The Court below has dismissed the said application and in my view rightly on the ground that the same is belated. At the hearing, though the learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court can amend the issues at any time before delivery of judgment and decree, I am of the opinion that this provision cannot be interpreted in an unduly liberal manner so as to give leverage to the parties to file applications at a belated stage. The petitioners have not come out with any explanation as to the reason for not filing the application for reframing of issues till after completion of the trial. The application filed when the suit was coming up for arguments after completion of trial is wholly belated and the Court below is justified in dismissing the same. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision, C.R.P.M.P.No.2758 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st December, 2010 GHN