THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.786 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.571 of 2009 in O.S.No.1485 of 2007 by the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint, was allowed. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1485 of 2007 filed for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the respondent filed the said I.A., for amendment of the plaint, stating that though the order of interim injunction is subsisting, the petitioners have demolished some part of the suit schedule property. The said I.A. was allowed by the trial Court having observed that the amendment of plaint will not introduce a new case and create new cause of action. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as the suit is filed for permanent injunction, later, by virtue of the application for amendment of the plaint, the respondent cannot seek for declaration of title and damages as it will change the nature of the suit, which is impermissible under law. 5. Order VI Rule 17 CPC reads as under; Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The above said provision clearly says that if the Court, prima facie, satisfied that the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, the same may be allowed. In the instant case, according to the respondent, during the pendency of the suit though the interim injunction is subsisting in his favour, the petitioners have demolished ABCD marked portion of the suit schedule property and as such, it is necessary to amend the plaint so as to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings. The trial Court has rightly allowed the I.A. since it was filed within the limitation and in case the plaint is amended, no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners, who raise all objections by filing additional written statement and contesting the matter. Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:26.02.2010 sj