THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.4324 of 2009 Date: 15.2.2011 Between: M. Kondala Rao ……….. Petitioner. And S. Rama Krishna Sarma and another. ……. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.4324 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 8.7.2009 passed in I.A.No.516 of 2008 in O.S.No.1680 of 2004 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the original suit. He filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents herein restraining them and their men from interfering in any manner with the windows and ventilators in the plaintiff’s exclusive wall C.D. of the plaint plan in the ground floor, I floor and II floor of plaint schedule house. Plaintiff has shown his house as ABCD and defendants’ house as EFGH. The plaintiff filed the suit on 26.11.2004. Now he has filed an application in I.A.No.516 of 2008 seeking permission of the Court to amend his pleadings by adding additional paragraph Nos.4-A to 4-D to the effect that ‘EH’ wall is the joint wall of the petitioner and the defendants. The respondent/defendant No.1 filed a detailed counter contending that ‘EFGH’ house is their exclusive house and that there is no mention in the sale deed or in the plaint that ‘EH’ wall is joint wall and that, after four years, the plaintiff cannot say that the ‘EH’ wall is a joint wall and that the proposed amendment would change the very nature of the suit. The lower Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner by observing that the suit was filed in the year 2004 and that all the issues were framed on 15.3.2005 and that none amendment is sought in the year 2008 and that there are no valid grounds to allow the petition. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to allow the revision? I have perused the entire material and also the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support his application in I.A.No.516 of 2008, the petitioner did not aver in his affidavit on what basis he is contending that ‘EH’ wall is a joint wall. Admittedly, after purchase, he has constructed a house as shown in ‘ABCD’ plan and subsequently mentioned in the plaint itself that ‘EFGH’ is the house of the respondents. Now he cannot change his stand and say that EH is the joint wall. If the amendment sought by the petitioners is allowed, it will change the very nature of the suit, I do not see any illegibility or irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:15.2.2011 mrb