THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.878 of 2011 ORDER: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 16.12.2010 passed in I.A. No. 1998 of 2010 in O.S. No. 772 of 2009 by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner, plaintiff in the suit, praying the Court to amend the plaint by adding the prayer portion ‘E’ directing the Tahsildar of Shamshabad to restore the revenue entries prior to implementation of ROR proceedings B. No. B/237/98 dated 25.07.1998. The petitioner claiming that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having inherited the same from his ancestors, filed the suit for declaration, declaring the sada sale deed dated 20.09.1989 as null and void and not binding on him and consequently grant injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement. The trial also concluded. And at that point of time, the petitioner filed the present I.A. stating that his name was recorded in the record of rights vide proceedings dated 23.06.1994 and he was also issued pattedar pass books. That he came to know about the entry of the name of the respondent in the record of rights on 24.08.2004, when he obtained pahanies for the year 2002-03, and on enquiry, further enquiries, he came to know that the respondent got his name mutated in the revenue record on the basis of fabricated sale deed dated 20.09.1989. He further stated that as the name of the respondent was recorded in the revenue record, without issuing any notice to him, the entries made by the Tahsildar, mutating the name of the respondent, are not binding on him. Hence, he contended that amendment in the prayer portion E, to the effect “to direct the Tahsildar, Shamshabad, to restore the revenue entries prior to implementation of RoR proceedings bearing No. B/237/98”, is necessary, and accordingly prayed the Court to permit him to make such amendment in the prayer portion of the plaint, in the interest of justice. The respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner filed the present application after conclusion of the evidence. The amendment sought by the petitioner is not permissible under law because the Tahsildar is authority competent to make entries in the revenue records. The Tahsildar regularized the sale deed after following the due procedure and mutated the name of the respondent in the revenue records. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the orders of the Tahsildar, mutating his name in the revenue record, was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioner, with a view to drag on the proceedings, filed the present petition, and prayed that the same be dismissed. The Court below having considered the rival contentions, by the order under revision, dismissed the present application holding that the petitioner failed to establish that despite due diligence, he could not seek the amendment before commencement of the trial. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. The suit is of the year 2004. The trial of the suit is over and the suit is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present application for amendment of the plaint, as indicated above. Respondent, in fact, in the written statement filed by him on 24.01.2005 has referred to the mutation proceedings dated 25.07.1998 made by the Mandal Revenue Officer. This apart, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Even though the petitioner is aware of the mutation proceedings, he has not taken any steps immediately for amendment of the plaint and instead after lapse of six years filed the present application, seeking amendment. The petitioner nowhere in the application has stated as to when the cause of action arose. However, it is his own case that he came to know about the mutation of the name of the respondent in the revenue record on 24.08.2004, when he obtained certified copies of the pahanies for the year 2002-03. The petitioner has not given any reasons for not claiming the relief of amendment of the plaint at earlier point of time, much less before commencement of the trial, even though he is aware of the mutation of the name of the respondent in the revenue record. The petitioner failed to show that in spite of due diligence, he could not bring these facts to the notice of the Court and seek amendment before commencement of the trial. Therefore, having regard to the amendment made to Order VI of C.P.C. introducing Rule 17, the proviso to which states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial, I am of the considered opinion that Court below was justified in dismissing the present application filed by the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C., praying to permit him to amend the plaint, as noted above, and no interference is warranted therewith by this Court in revision. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 29th April, 2011 IBL