HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5286 OF 2011 . DATED 9TH DECEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Smt. Sampangi Bapanamma …Petitioner And Sri Gandam Adinarayana ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5286 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No. 639 of 2006 on the file of the learned First Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District for eviction of the respondent from the land in an extent of Ac.0.029 cents shown as ‘XYCD” more fully explained in the plaint plan and for delivery of possession thereof. The respondent herein is contesting the suit and he filed a written statement. The Advocate Commissioner appointed pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No. 278 of 2009 submitted his report on 28.07.2009 stating that the petitioner’s plot measures Ac.0.49.094 cents as against the measurement in the sale deed to an extent of Ac.0.52 cents and thereby showing deficit to an extent of Ac.0.02.906 cents. Evidence from both sides was closed and the suit is now posted for arguments. At this juncture, the petitioner filed the application in I.A.No.334 of 2011 seeking amendment of the plaint basing on the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 28.07.2009. The Court below dismissed the said application through the order under revision. Heard. Perused the case file. Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC postulates that 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. It also lays down that such amendments should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Notwithstanding the same, no application for amendment should 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 manner for which amendment is sought before the commencement of the trial. In the case on hand, the trail was completed and the suit is posted for arguments. Further, it is to be seen that although the Advocate Commissioner had submitted his report on 28.07.2009, the impugned application seeking amendment of the plaint was filed nearly after two years. Nothing prevented the petitioner to file such an application for amendment immediately thereafter, but she did not do so for the reasons best known to her. Knowing very well as to the report of the Advocate Commissioner in the year 2009 itself, the petitioner is not diligent enough in pursuing the matter in taking further necessary steps, if any, in pursuance thereof. In the circumstances, the Court below rightly considered and rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order under revision warranting inference in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 9th December, 2011. Msnro