THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2677 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed this Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 14.11.2006, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, rejecting the application in I.A.No.1068 of 2005 in O.S.No.10 of 2001 purported to be filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., whereby he sought for amendment of the plaint to include the relief of possession. The brief facts of the case are that in a suit comprehensively for declaration and injunction, the petitioner came out with the present application stating that subsequent to the filing of the suit, he has been dispossessed from the suit schedule property. Hence, there is necessity for amending the prayer by including the relief of possession in place of injunction. The Court below, however, having gone into the merits of the case did not find in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the Revision Petition. Having heard learned counsel on either side and on a perusal of the material on record, it is to be seen that the suit itself as has been filed and framed is a comprehensive and substantial one for declaration and injunction and now, the case of the petitioner is that subsequently, he has been dispossessed and hence, he wanted to add the relief of possession. The said cause of action is a subsequent one and therefore, there is absolutely no bar for amending the prayer and granting the relief if it warrants in the exigency. The Court below was not right in rejecting the said application mainly on the ground that the petitioner has failed to substantiate the forcible dispossession, as claimed by him. It is to be borne in mind that when considering the interlocutory applications, the stage is not ripe for the Court to go into the merits of the case to have any say or give any findings. Any such findings are totally unwarranted and it should be avoided. It is only the application that needs to be disposed of considering the question as to whether such amendment is required or not and not beyond that. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1068 of 2005 in O.S.No.10 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur, is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO 1st July 2010 dr