THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.5601 of 2009 Date of Order: 05-12-2009 Between: 1. Tavvala Surya Nagamani and others ..Petitioners and 1.Tavvala Mohan Rao and anoher ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.5601 of 2009 Oral Order: Petitioners/plaintiffs filed this revision on dismissal of I.A.No.375 of 2009 in O.S.No.733 of 2003 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by the I Additional Civil Judge, Rajahmundry dated 18-09-2009. Petitioners, who filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from constructing structures as it blocks their easementary right of light and air from eastern side, filed the above I.A. for amendment of the plaint. On dismissal of the same, present revision has been filed. Admittedly, the above I.A. was filed stating that while preparing the arguments it is found that by oversight the relief of declaration regarding the easementary right of light and air is not sought and without seeking the declaration they cannot succeed in the suit and, therefore, prayed the Court to allow the proposed amendment. The defendants filed a counter stating that previously also petitioners/plaintiffs amended the plaint after allowing C.M.A.No.24 of 2003, which was filed by the respondents/defendants, and filled up the gaps and laches; the present petition is filed with a view to procrastinate the matter and harass them; after closure of the evidence on both sides and after hearing the arguments in part present petition is not maintainable. The lower court found that suit was filed in the year 2003 and in the meantime, the petitioners have already amended the plaint for several times. The plea that they have not noticed even after 6 years is only a ruse. Therefore, the amendment sought for at the arguments stage will cause prejudice to the respondents/defendants and amounts to change the nature of the suit and accordingly dismissed the I.A. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not disputed that the suit as such was filed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and their agents from constructing the structures. At the time of preparing the arguments, they came to know the relief of declaration ought to have been sought, therefore, they are advised to file the present petition. Against the grant of temporary injunction the respondents/defendants filed C.M.A.No.24 of 2003, which was allowed. On allowing the same the petitioners/plaintiffs got amended the plaint and added para-3(a) and 8(a); after the trial has been commenced and at the stage of arguments again the petitioners came forward to add para 8(b) claiming that they are entitled to the easementary right of light and air from the eastern side to the plaint schedule property. The petitioners were not diligent and used to go on amending the plaint on installment basis. The lower court rightly dismissed the I.A., which do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. In view of the same, I see no ground to entertain the revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 05-12-2009 Murthy