THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4428 of 2010 Petitioners filed O.S.No.241 of 1993 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda against the respondent initially for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property of Ac.5.16 cents in Survey No.261 of Pulikonda village, Pattikonda Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. The defendant filed a written statement opposing the suit. According to him, the total extent of Survey No.261 is Ac.15.16 cents and out of it, he purchased Ac.10.00 cents in the year 1939. The land purchased by him, is said to have been assigned a sub- division number of 261/3 and during the pendency of the suit, petitioners filed an application to amend the suit and to incorporate the relief of declaration of title. The trial Court decreed the suit. 3. Respondent filed A.S.No.9 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. The appeal was allowed by the Judgment dated 28.04.2004, it was held that the trial Court ought not to have permitted the amendment unless the Court fee for the corresponding relief was paid. On this and certain other grounds, the lower appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court. 4. After remand, petitioners filed I.A.No.104 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to permit them to amend the plaint by making reference to the directions of the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.9 of 1998. The purport of the amendment was that in Para 8 (a) and 9 (a) (i), the words “confirmation of possession” be substituted in the place of word “possession” and that the schedule to the plaint be amended in such a way that it refers to the land in Survey No.261 or 261/3 admeasuring Ac.0.29 cents instead of land in Survey No.261 admeasuring Ac.5.16 cents. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.104 of 2010 in O.S.No.241 of 1993 through the Order dated 09.08.2010. Hence this revision. 5. Sri R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the very purpose of remanding the matter to the trial Court was to enable the petitioners herein to seek amendment of the prayer and that the trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application. He submits that though the dispute was in relation to Ac.5.16 cents in Survey No.261, as of now it is only about Ac.0.29 cents of land in Survey No.261 or 261/3. 6. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent, on the other hand submits that amendment is not at all referable to the directions issued by the lower appellate Court. He submits that the proposed amendment to the schedule of the suit would completely alter the nature of controversy and the subject matter of dispute. He further submits that if there was change of circumstances, the very cause of action for filing the suit ceased to exist and if so advised, the petitioners ought to have filed a separate suit. 7. The petitioners approached the trial Court way back in the year 1993 by filing a suit for injunction simplicitor in respect of Ac.5.16 cents of land. The relief of declaration of title was sought during the pendency of the suit through amendment of the plaint. The trial Court permitted the amendment, without insisting for payment of requisite court fee. Ultimately the suit was decreed. The lower appellate Court found fault with the decree and held that the amendment ought not to have allowed unless the court fee was paid. With a view to enable the petitioners to cure the defect, the lower appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court. 8. In its judgment, the lower appellate Court no doubt, observed that the opportunity must be given to the parties, to amend the pleadings and to adduce evidence. Such opportunity, however was confined to “the aspect of court fee”. The interlocutory application filed by the petitioners was for a totally different purpose altogether. Whatever may be the justification for seeking substitution of the words “confirmation of possession” for the word “possession” in the body of the plaint, there was absolutely no justification for attempting to replace the suit schedule. The relief in the suit was claimed in respect of Ac.5.16 cents of land in Survey No.261. The proposed amendment is to the effect that the relief be granted for an extent of Ac.0.29 cents of land in Survey No.261 or 261/3. The petitioners were sure as to the identity of the land when the suit was filed on the basis of cause of action vis-à-vis a particular item of property; it is impermissible for the plaintiffs to claim relief in respect of different item of property by way of amendment. If the petitioners had grievance in respect of Ac.0.29 cents of land, they ought to have filed a suit separately by pleading necessary facts. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter while dismissing the interlocutory application. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 21st March, 2011 KSP