IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6179 OF 2009 Between: Gonuguntla Madhavaiah ..... PETITIONER AND Kristam Lakshmi Devi .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6179 of 2009 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.13 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein (plaintiff) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property. The defendant filed a written statement opposing the suit claim and admittedly the trial is yet to be commenced. While so the plaintiff filed I.A.No.317 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment of the plaint by adding paras 7 to 15. Though the revision petitioner/defendant opposed, the Court below by order dated 11.12.2009 allowed the I.A. on payment of costs of Rs.300/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court below ought not to have permitted the proposed amendment since it would result in introducing a new cause of action apart from changing the entire complexion and nature of the suit. It is true that by virtue of the proposed amendment the plaintiff seeks to narrate several events which were absent in the original plaint. However, on a careful reading of the proposed amendment it is clear that the plaintiff is only attempting to clarify certain aspects with regard to her predecessors in title and it does not amount to introducing a new case. It is also relevant to note that by allowing the amendment no injustice would be caused to the petitioner/defendant. As the trial has not yet commenced, it is always open to the petitioner/defendant to file additional written statement and thereafter, it is for both the parties to adduce the necessary evidence to substantiate their respective claims. Hence, the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in allowing the amendment as sought by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ Date: 02.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd