IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.75 OF 2011 Between : Nelakurthi Thayamma and others. ...APPELLANTS A N D Manikala Polaiah @ Soola @ Itukula Polaiah others. … RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.75 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Order XLIII Rule 1 (u) of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 18.08.2010 in A.S.No.04 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, whereunder and whereby, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.103 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sulurpet, were set aside and remanded the matter to the trial Court for framing necessary issues by giving reasonable opportunity to both sides for adducing evidence for proper adjudication of the matter. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 3. Admittedly the suit was filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for recovery of possession of Ac.0.03 cents of land. The suit was decreed on 17.11.2004. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed I.A.No.108 of 2006 in A.S.No.4 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint schedule property with regard to extent of land from Ac.0.03 cents to Ac. 0.32 cents. That petition was allowed by order, dated 20.03.2007. Therefore, by virtue of amendment, the appellants are claiming for recovery of possession of Ac.0.32 cents of land. That order has become final. Necessary evidence has to be let in view of the said amendment. 4. In view of amendment, necessary evidence has to be let in by the appellants to show that they have got right, title and interest to an extent of Ac.0.32 cents the property to recover possession of the same from the defendants. Whether the respondents are encroachers to the property or not; whether they have title to the property has to be decided in the suit. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents are encroachers to the property cannot be decided at this stage. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for the interference by this Court because during the pendency of the appeal, the amendment petition was allowed. In view of amendment, it is reasonable to give an opportunity to both parties to let in evidence. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 1999, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit itself as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after giving due opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 11, 2011. YVL