THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4949 OF 2011 01.12.2011 Between: Upadhyala Krishna Murthy And others. …Petitioners AND B.Srimannarayana @ Raja Reddy And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4949 OF 2011 ORDER: The plaintiffs 3, 6, 7 and 9 in O.S.No.10 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada are the petitioners. Their application being I.A.No.3514 of 2009 ﬁled under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking amendment having been dismissed by the impugned order dated 06.06.2011 passed by the Court below, they ﬁled the instant civil revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Originally one Upadhyala Sita instituted the suit for declaration that the registered sale deed dated 13.06.1991 executed by her in favour of the ﬁrst respondent (defendant) is a nominal sale deed and that the defendant did not acquire any rights under the sale deed and for recovery of certain amount. The suit is admittedly at the stage of arguments. The petitioners herein ﬁled the interlocutory application for amendment of the plaint by adding paragraphs XV to XVII(c) to the eﬀect that a decree may be passed for possession of the suit schedule property after evicting the defendant. In support thereof, they alleged that the defendant trespassed the suit schedule property on 25.01.2008, and occupied the same by breaking open the locks on 25.01.2008, and thereafter collecting rents from the tenants. The application was opposed by the ﬁrst respondent contending that he is the rightful owner of the plaint schedule property, remaining in possession and enjoying the property and that the allegations made are not true. As noticed supra, on considering the rival contentions, the Court below dismissed the application. The counsel for petitioners would submit that when an application is ﬁled under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint having regard to the subsequent event, the Court below ought to have allowed the amendment. Per contra, the counsel for ﬁrst respondent would submit that the suit has been coming up for arguments for more than three years, the two other applications ﬁled by the petitioners one seeking mandatory injunction and another seeking amendment were already dismissed, and therefore, another application would not lie. There is no dispute that the deceased plaintiﬀ No.1 executed the sale deed in favour of the ﬁrst respondent on 13.06.1991. There is also no dispute that though the suit was ﬁled in 2001, and the LRs of the deceased ﬁrst plaintiﬀ came on record, they did not make any averment to the eﬀect that they are in possession of the property. Further, as noticed by the Court below, alleging that the defendant has trespassed into the suit schedule property, the petitioners herein ﬁled I.A.No.1294 of 2008 for mandatory injunction which was dismissed. They also ﬁled I.A.No.3028 of 2009 for amendment which was also dismissed. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioners have any new cause of action ﬁling repeated applications. The suit was initially ﬁled for declaration that the sale deed executed by deceased original plaintiﬀ is a nominal one. If ultimately the plaintiﬀ succeeds, they may have to ﬁle a separate suit for possession as now they admit that the defendant is in possession of the property. In the present suit, the amendment cannot be allowed at the belated stage, especially when the matter is coming up for arguments for more than three years. The civil revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01.12.2011 Pln