THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4253 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 21.08.2010 in I.A. No.2209 of 2010 in O.S. No.238 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby petition filed under Order VI Rule 7 C.P.C. read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking permission to amend the plaint, was dismissed. 2. The amendment petition is filed seeking to amend the plaint to add the following para. “Further the plaintiff came to know that the property belonged to Sri Dandeswara Swamy Temple, Prathipadu and the Sub Registrar’s office, Prathipadu, might be reluctant to register the same and that therefore the plaintiff demanded the defendant to execute the sale deed by clearing the doubt of the plaintiff with regard to ownership of the schedule property by obtaining the permission of the Commissioner of Endowments to register the sale deed.” The trial court dismissed the petition following the decision in Baldev Singh & others v. Manohar Singh & another[1]. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Invoking provision under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. is not automatic. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27.12.2006 in respect of the suit schedule land. It is an admitted fact that in the year 2007 itself i.e. by the date of issuance of Ex.A4-notice dated 9.5.2007 by the petitioner, the petitioner got full knowledge about the title of the respondent with regard to the schedule property. Still, he filed the present suit in the year 2009 for enforcement of the contract of sale dated 27.12.2006, and nowhere it is mentioned in the plaint that the respondent/defendant is not the owner of the property. Further more, even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit is coming for arguments after completion of evidence on both sides. The petitioner has not exercised due diligence to take steps to amend the plaint after commencement of trial. Therefore, at this stage, amendment of pleadings cannot be entertained. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. The suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27.12.2006 or in the alternative for refund of earnest money. Since the respondent/defendant has no title to the schedule property, the petitioner/plaintiff has got remedy to file a petition or a memo, not pressing the main relief of specific performance of contract of sale and confine the relief for refund of earnest money. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. --------------------- 17.9.2010 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4253 of 2010 17.09.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4253 of 2010 17.09.2010 Between: Kolla Vengaiah …Petitioner And Lambu Rambabu …Respondent [1] AIR 2006 SC 2832