THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5206 OF 2009 Date: 11. 03.2010 Between: Mohammd Gulzar ..... PETITIONER AND Mohammd Gulfam and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5206 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.142 of 2009 in A.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur. The facts in brief are as under: The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed O.S.No.33 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur for declaration of his title in respect of the suit schedule property and also seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants 4 and 5 from interfering with the said property. The suit was dismissed by judgment dated 14.02.2007 and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur. Pending the said suit, the plaintiff/appellant/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.142 of 2009 for amendment of the plaint by adding paras 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c) to the effect that the suit property was situated in Survey No.32 and that he had been in enjoyment of the said property along with defendants 1 to 3 since the date of purchase under the sale deed dated 27.02.1982. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it is pleaded that as the said facts were not specifically pleaded in the plaint he was advised to amend the plaint suitably. The said application was opposed by the defendants/respondents in the appeal and by order dated 24.08.2009, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.142 of 2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendment being essential to determinate the real questions of controversy between the parties the Court below, ought not to have dismissed the application on technical grounds. It is true that under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, the amendment of plaint can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings and there is no bar to permit such amendment even at the appellate stage. However, this is a case where the Court below, on a d0etailed consideration of the facts and circumstances, particularly the contents of the plaint and the written statement, recorded a finding that since the entire evidence was based on the alleged sub division of the property covered under the sale deed dated 27.02.1982 as Survey No.32-1, if the proposed amendment is allowed, it would alter the nature of the case. As rightly found by the Court below the proposed amendment did not include any legal plea. Moreover no sufficient reasons could be shown by the plaintiff/appellant for his failure to seek the proposed amendment before the trial Court. In the light of the findings recorded by the Court below on proper appreciation of the material available on record, I am unable to hold that the order under revision suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ Date: 11.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd