THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.2665 of 2009 Date of order: 28-08-2009 Between: M/s.Reliance Industries Ltd., rep. by Sri Subrata Ghosh. …petitioner And Adusumilli Suseela Devi …Respondent The court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.2665 of 2009 Oral Order: The defendant in the suit filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada dated 02-05-2009 allowing the amendment of the plaint in I.A.No.5 of 2009 in O.S.No.429 of 2006. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession of Ac.5.20 cts. in Sy.No.661 of Polekuru village shown as Item—I and Ac.3.70 cts. in Sy.No.658 shown as Item—II in the plaint schedule and to pass a decree decreeing that the red marked passage is only passage to reach the property of the plaintiff and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere with the plaintiff’s passage. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit. On dismissal of I.A.Nos.1490 and 1491 of 2006 filed for interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property and passage respectively and on confirmation of the same in C.M.A.Nos.32 and 33 of 2007, the plaintiff filed the above I.A. seeking amendment of the plaint and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property stating that after filing the suit the defendant highhandedly encroached into the property, hence the amendment. The lower court by the impugned order allowed the I.A. on the ground that proposed amendment will not cause any prejudice to the rights of the defendant and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings amendment sought should be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant strenuously contended that to wriggle out from the findings recorded by the lower court as confirmed by the appellate court, dismissing the interim injunction application, amendment is sought by the plaintiff which cannot be allowed when the plaintiff was not in possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit. As per the finding recorded by the lower court in the I.A., the allegation that the plaintiff was dispossessed after dismissal of CMAs which require amendment cannot be accepted. Earlier the plaintiff filed the suit only for bare injunction, but now by virtue of amendment she seeks declaration of title. Therefore, it is always open for the defendant to question right of the plaintiff for declaration, if any, by filing additional written statement. Whether the plaintiff was dispossessed after dismissal of CMAs. is a matter, which has to be enquired into by the lower court by framing an issue to that effect and permitting the parties to lead evidence. It is well settled that once the lower court had jurisdiction to allow such amendment, unless it attained finality and rights of the parties are foreclosed reflecting manifest injustice, which cannot be corrected at a later stage, the Court cannot exercise discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the case on hand, since the rights of the parties are not foreclosed by virtue of such amendment, it is for the plaintiff to establish declaration of title and recovery of possession, which do not call for correction in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. No infirmity is discernable in the order passed by the lower court warranting interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to file additional written statement taking all the pleas available to it. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J 28-08-2009 Murthy