THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4183 of 2008 Date of Order:04.03.2011 Between: M.Venkata Basavaiah and another ..Petitioners and T.Rama Rao and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVILREVISION PETITION No.4183 of 2008 ORDER :- Petitioners/plaintiffs filed this revision under Article 226 of the Constitution, against the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda passed in I.A.No.893 of 2008 in O.S.No. 88 of 2000, dated 25.08.2008, in dismissing the I.A. filed for amendment of the plaint. It is not in dispute that the petitioners/plaintiffs initially filed suit for permanent injunction in which they filed I.A.No.323 of 2005 seeking declaration of title of the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioners. After allowing the I.A., the parties lead their evidence and after closing the trial when the matter is coming up for arguments from 18.07.2008, the petitioners filed the petition to reopen and to receive the document on 30.07.2008 and on dismissal of the said I.A. on 04.02.2008, the matter is posted for arguments on 08.08.2008. Later at the request of the petitioners it was adjourned to 12.08.2008 and on the said date he filed the impugned I.A. seeking amendment of the plaint at para 6(a) stating that the suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiff No.2 in the oral partition in the year 1990 and he in turn gave permissive possession thereof in the year 1992 on the request that his house was collapsed in the cyclone of May, 1990; that defendant No.1 started residing in the cattle shed and is in possession of the suit schedule property since 1992; and also at para 6(b) about forcible eviction of defendant No.1 from the suit schedule property from taking possession and when defendant No.1 tried to interfere with the possession of the schedule property, he filed the suit for permanent injunction etc. The lower court dismissed the I.A. holding that the pleas taken to amend the plaint were inconsistent with the original pleadings and the cause of action also changes. Therefore, the plaint cannot be amended at the belated stage that too when the case is posted for arguments. With regard to the amendment of the suit in para 6(a) and 7(a), it was held that the said amendment was already granted in I.A.No.323 of 2005 and, therefore, there was no need to amend the plaint by incorporating the paras pleaded. In spite of service of notice on the respondents, none appears for the respondents/defendants. The amendment now pleaded by the petitioners are new pleas which were available to them at the time when they filed I.A.No.323 of 2005, but were not pleaded in the said I.A. If the said amendment is now permitted to be allowed, it will change the entire cause of action as rightly held by the trial court. In view of the same, the petitioners/plaintiffs is not entitled to seek amendment. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the lower court is directed to dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made while disposing the I.A. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J March 4, 2011 Lmv