HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1745 OF 2009 DATE:25-03-2011 BETWEEN Arepalli Veera Raghavulu …Petitioner AND Posina Venkateswara Rao And others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1745 OF 2009 ORDER: Defendant is in revision against the orders of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam in allowing I.A.No.1269 of 2008 in O.S.No.157 of 2001, dated 24.2.2009 filed for amendment of the plaint. Plaintiffs-respondents herein filed the above suit for permanent injunction and pending the same, they filed I.A.No.1237 of 2001 for grant of ad interim injunction, which was dismissed by the Court below on 29.1.2002 with a finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit schedule property for grant of temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the plaintiffs-respondents herein filed C.M.A.No.8 of 2002 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam and the same was also dismissed on 20.6.2002. After dismissal of the C.M.A., the impugned I.A. was filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint stating that the defendant with brute force came to the suit schedule property on 21.5.2007, dispossessed the plaintiffs and occupied the property and enjoying the same. Thus the cause of action arose on such dispossession on 21.5.2007 and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as owners of the suit schedule property, for eviction of the defendant and for restoration of the possession. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought for amendment of the plaint by substituting a new plaint in place of original plaint. On allowing the I.A. by the lower Court, the present revision is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. The contention of the petitioner is that once the plaintiffs are found to be not in possession of the suit schedule property and the petitioner is found to be in possession of the property as per the finding recorded in I.A.No.1237 of 2001, by virtue of amending the plaint, it relates back to the date of institution of the suit and therefore, the Court below ought not to have allowed the amendment and even if it is allowed, the relief sought for by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and for recovery of possession must be from the date on which the application for amendment was made. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs sought to sustain the impugned order contending that the plaintiffs-respondents herein were dispossessed from the suit schedule property on their failure to obtain temporary injunction and therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. Admittedly, the plaintiffs-respondents herein are found to be not in possession as per the findings recorded by the Court below in I.A.No.1237 of 2001 filed for temporary injunction. The impugned I.A. was filed for amendment of the plaint seeking the relief for declaration of title and for recovery of possession, which will change the nature of the suit. Therefore, the date of the amendment shall be taken into consideration as the relevant date for institution of the said suit, so that the valuable right accrued to the defendant-petitioner herein namely that the suit is barred by limitation cannot be taken away by virtue of this amendment. In view of the same, the order passed by the lower Court allowing the amendment of plaint shall be confined to the one that the same shall be taken as the date for institution of the suit for the reliefs claimed namely, for declaration of title and for recovery of possession as held by the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and another [2002 (7) SCC 559]. The revision is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 25, 2011 Tsr.