THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1759 OF 2009 DATED: 31-01-2011 Between: Samala Sathyamma (died) & another. .... PETITIONERS And Qutubullapur Municipality, Rep.by its Commissioner, Rangareddy District & 4 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 04-03-2009, in I.A.No.2861 of 2007 in O.S.No.730 of 1999 on the file of the learned VI Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Rangareddy District, Medchal, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein- plaintiff for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Petitioners filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession over Ac.3.25 guntas of land in Survey No.97, Qutubullapur village. Defendants filed a written statement in the year 2001, disputing the plaintiffs’ claim of possession. 2nd petitioner herein-2nd plaintiff filed I.A.No.2861 of 2007, seeking amendment of the plaint to the effect that he is confining the relief of permanent injunction only to the extent of 2433.6 Sq.yds. According to him, the 1st respondent-municipality is stating that the land was laid out into plots and the lay out was approved by the HUDA and the 1st respondent also approved the plans for construction of houses by the respective purchasers and that only 2433.6 Sq.yds of site is lying vacant. 2nd petitioner herein, therefore, seeks to confine the relief of injunction only in respect of the said remaining extent of 2433.6 Sq.yds of site, which according to him is in his possession and the rest of the plaint schedule property is laid out into plots. There cannot be any tenable objection for permitting the plaintiff to make the amendment, as proposed, as the same does not change the nature of suit or cause of action or alter the character of the suit and does not also cause any prejudice to the defendants. In fact, by virtue of the proposed amendment, plaintiff is confining the relief of permanent injunction for a reduced extent out of the plaint schedule land. 4. The question as to whether or not the plaintiff is still in possession of the remaining extent of 2433.6 Sq.yds, as claimed by him, is a matter to be considered by the trial Court on evidence during the course of the trial. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the same is belated having been filed after six years of filing the written statement. It is stated that the trial of the suit has not yet commenced. Of course, the plaintiff could have filed the application for amendment immediately after filing of the written statement, but since no prejudice is caused to the defendants because of the proposed amendment and the trial has also not yet commenced, it is considered that the plaintiff can be permitted to amend the plaint, as proposed. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.2861 of 2007 stands allowed and the plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint, as proposed. It is needless to point out that the defendants would be entitled to file additional written statement, if so advised. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Interim stay granted on 30-04-2009 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 31st January, 2011. Tsy