THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5248 of 2010 Dated 08th July, 2011 Between: Settipalli Venkata Rao …Petitioner And L.V.Rama Raju and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Simhadri Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri P.Govind Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri V.Subrahmanyam The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against order, dated 07.09.2010, in I.A.No.1311 of 2009 in O.S.No.13 of 2007, on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Suryapet. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale by directing defendant No.1 to get a regular sale deed executed in his favour through defendant No.2 and other reliefs, which need not be specifically stated herein. After the commencement of the trial and completion of evidence of the plaintiff as PW.1 and another witness as PW.2 on his side, he filed I.A.No.1311 of 2009 seeking amendment of the prayer of the plaint by inserting the prayer to direct defendant Nos.1 to 3 to jointly execute the sale deed. The plaintiff also sought for deletion of the words ‘through defendant No.2’ in the prayer portion of the plaint, besides addition of the prayer to declare that registered sale deed No.3567 of 2007, dated 21.05.2007, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.4 as null and void and not binding on him. This application was opposed by the defendants by filing a counter affidavit. The Court below, after considering the respective pleas of the parties and the material on record, dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that the amendment, if allowed, will prejudice the interests of defendant Nos.3 and 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC provides for amendment of the pleadings. The proviso to the said Rule bars an application for amendment 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 the commencement of trial. A perusal of the application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment would show that the only reason given by him was that by oversight he did not ask for the prayers, which are now sought to be inserted by way of amendment. In my opinion, this reason cannot constitute a sufficient ground for amendment of the plaint at a too belated stage where as noted above, as many as two witnesses were already examined on the plaintiff’s side. There is no whisper in the application of the plaintiff that despite exercise of due diligence, he could not make proper prayer. Another aspect which needs to be considered in this case is that the plaintiff has not only sought for an amendment of the prayer to include defendant Nos.2 and 3 also in the relief portion for execution of the sale deed, but also sought for a declaration to hold that the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.4 is invalid and unenforceable. This, in my opinion, will completely alter the character of the suit which cannot be permitted by way of an amendment. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any error of jurisdiction on the part of the Court below in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the prayer in the plaint and accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, interim order, dated 21.01.2011, which was extended until further orders on 18.03.2011, shall stand vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.6980 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th July, 2011 VGB