THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 1741 of 2011. ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle allowing the I.A.No. 333 of 2010 in O.S.No. 166 of 2009. The suit was initially filed for declaring that the certificate of sale dt. 29.1.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent on confirmation of the auction by the 4th respondent by his order dt. 2.1.2009 in favour of the 2nd petitioner after a gap of nine years from the date of alleged auction said to be conducted by the 2nd respondent for the sale of suit schedule land is illegal and is not legally binding on the plaintiff and that all the proceedings initiated by the respondents 3 and 4 herein (defendants 3 and 4) is contrary to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and in violation of the principles of natural justice; and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their authorisees from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Admittedly, the trial of the suit is not commenced. In March, 2010 the plaintiff filed application for amendment of the plaint. The total extent of suit schedule property is Ac. 1-23 cents of Koppaka village of Anakapalle Mandal and it was shown as Item No.1 in the plaint schedule and by the amendment the property was sought to be classified into two items i.e. Ac. 0.60 cents and Ac. 0.63 cents and the plaintiff/1st respondent also sought a declaration of title in addition to declaration of invalidity of the confirmation of auction. Sri.B.Ramakrishna, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that since the 1st respondent/plaintiff had knowledge of the claim to title even prior to the filing of the suit, he should not be permitted to amend the reliefs in the plaint after institution of the suit. Reliance is placed for this contention on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Vijendra Kumar Goel vs. Kusum Bhuwania[1] a n d Alkapuri Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. Jayantibhai Naginbhai[2]. In the second cited decision while reiterating the position that the court’s jurisdiction to consider an application for amendment of pleadings is wide in nature under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, had observed that since the respondents/plaintiffs have accepted the fact that the appellant (therein) had filed a suit prior in point of time to the suit filed by the deceased respondent and also obtained injunction as a result of which they did not obtain effective possession of the suit schedule land and since the amendment sought alters the nature of the suit, the same cannot be allowed. In the 1st decision (supra) the amendment allowed by the High Court to incorporate the relief of specific performance was reversed since the Supreme Court found that the amendment sought for specific performance of contract was barred by limitation. Since the decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are fact specific and do not lay down a generic principle that no amendment should be allowed where cause of action for the proposed amendment was known to the plaintiff before the institution of the suit, this court discerns no such invariable or non-derogable principle on these aspects. It is axiomatic that the established principle is that amendments should be liberally allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is the case of the 1st respondent in support of his application for amendment of the relief that the cause of action for seeking declaration of title arose on 3.2.2009 when the sale of auction was confirmed by the District Collector though the sale was conducted in the year 2000. These matters are susceptible to adjudication at the trial of the suit as and when revision petitioners set up a plea of limitation as to the amendment of reliefs sought by the plaintiff. On the aforesaid analysis, this Court discerns no infirmity in the law or exercise of discretion warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The revision is without merits and is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 16.09.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 1741 of 2011. ORDER: Dt. 16.09.2011. [1] (1997)11 Supreme Court Cases 457. [2] (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 467.