THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 6289 of 2009 Dated: 26.03.2010 Between: K.Venkata Ramanappa and another. … Petitioners And K. Chidanandappa and 4 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 6289 of 2009 O R D E R : The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.74 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda. The suit is filed for declaration of title and for grant of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants/respondents herein filed written statement contesting the suit claim. It was contended in the written statement inter alia that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property and they had no title to the same. The claim of the plaintiffs that the suit property belonged to one Anjinappa and the plaintiffs had inherited to the said property was specifically denied. Subsequently, the defendants filed I.A.No.80 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking permission to amend the written statement by inserting para No.6-A and para No.6-B stating that the facts sought to be inserted by way of amendment were necessary to give a clear picture about the suit property and to arrive at a just conclusion. The petition was opposed by the plaintiffs contending that the plea sought to be taken by way of amendment was inconsistent with the original defence in the written statement and it would change the character of the suit. The Court below, by order dated 20.04.2009 allowed I.A.No.80 of 2009 thereby permitting the defendants to amend the written statement. Aggrieved by the same, the preset revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the Court below had committed any error in allowing the proposed amendment to the written statement. On a perusal of the pleadings and other material available on record, a finding of fact was recorded by the Court below that the defendants did not take inconsistent plea in the proposed amendment as alleged by the plaintiffs. The contention of the plaintiffs that the proposed amendment would alter the nature of the suit was also found to be untenable. Therefore, the Court below had rightly allowed the amendment. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 26.03.2010 KLP