HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 393 OF 2010 Friday, the Fifth day of February, Two Thousand and Ten Between G.Satyanarayana Reddy Petitioner AND Smt. G.Laxmamma and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiff in OS No. 5963 of 2002 on the file of the XV Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2009 passed in IA No. 9 of 2009 dismissing the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint. The petitioner herein filed the above suit seeking to cancel the Deed of Cancellation of Gift Deed bearing document No. 2561 of 2002 dated 11.09.2002 and for perpetual injunction against the first respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and from alienating or creating any charge over the same. It is his case that prior to his filing the above suit, the first respondent herein had filed OS No. 3805 of 2001 on the file of the XIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking the relief of perpetual injunction from evicting her from the suit schedule property. While so, on 11.9.2002, it is stated that the respondent No.1 herein had unilaterally cancelled the Gift Deed bearing document No.3114 of 1995 dated 25.11.1995, by virtue of which the petitioner herein was said to be put in possession of the suit schedule property. While so, the court below has rendered a categorical finding in OS No. 3805 of 2001 filed by the first respondent herein that she cannot be dispossessed or evicted without adopting due process of law. The said categorical finding by the court below in OS No. 3805 of 2001 dated 8.9.2003 had necessitated the petitioner herein to file the above said application seeking amendment to the plaint in OS No. 5963 of 2002, inasmuch as the decree in OS No. 3805 of 2001 was passed subsequent to the filing of O.S. No. 5963 of 2002, by the petitioner herein. The court below observing that the petitioner ought to have sought the amendment before commencement of trial instead of raising the issue at the fag end of the suit i.e. at the stage of cross examination of DW-2, dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As can be seen from Order VI Rule 17, amendment cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court is satisfied that inspite of due diligence, the issue could not be raised before commencement of trial. In the instant case, as observed by the court below, there is nothing on record to show as to what prevented the petitioner herein from seeking amendment before trial in the suit commenced. Therefore, the court below is right in denying the relief sought for by the petitioner. Having gone through the material available on record, I am of the considered view that no grounds are made out to interfere with the observations made by the court below and I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Inasmuch as the suit is of the year 2002 and the first respondent who is mother of the petitioner herein, is a senior citizen, aged 75 yeas, the court below is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari February 5, 2010 MAS.