THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.615 of 2010 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.944 of 2006 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, against the petitioner for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, they filed I.A.No.865 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit them to amend the plaint to incorporate the prayer for declaration of the suit schedule property. The petitioner opposed the application. Through its order dated 08.12.2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this revision. Sri Sunil Babu Vajram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the application is clearly barred under proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. and the trial Court did not take the same into account, at all. He contends that the trial of the suit commenced with the framing of issues and as a matter of fact, an affidavit, in lieu of chief examination, was filed by P.W.1 on 04.03.2009, whereas the application for amendment was filed in November, 2009. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji[1]. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the dispute is between M.G. Autonagar Association on the one hand and the petitioner on the other hand, and that on account of lack of clear understanding on the part of the office bearers of the Association about various aspects of the matter, the application had to be filed in the year 2009, particularly, when the petitioner disputed the very title of the association vis-à-vis the suit schedule property. It is no doubt true that the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. places restrictions on the amendment of pleadings, after the commencement of trial. However, the prohibition is not absolute and much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the respondents, representing the association, filed the suit for injunction simplicitor, against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was an employee of the association and he started undertaking of certain works on the suit land. It was only when the petitioner took the plea that he is the owner of the property through his written statement, that the respondents felt the necessity to seek the relief of declaration of title. It is not as if there was any substantial progress in the suit. Except that an affidavit in lieu of chief examination was filed, the trial leading to issues has not taken place. Further, the affairs of the association cannot be expected to be dealt with same kind of meticulousness, as in the case of individuals. It must not be forgotten that the office bearers in the management keep on changing periodically and those who assume the office do not have full comprehension of the affairs. Added to that, the petitioner is said to have created certain records taking advantage of the fact that he was an employee. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the instant case falls into exceptions that can be carved out from the prohibition contained in the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. The hardship that may have been caused to the petitioner may be compensated by awarded costs. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, however, by directing that the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the petitioner towards costs for allowing the amendment. Costs shall be paid to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 09th June, 2010 GHN [1] AIR 2007 SC 806