THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1429 AND 1978 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since the parties are one and the same in these two revisions, both are taken up together for disposal. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.1429 of 2009 filed the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 13.02.2009 in I.A.No.70 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, in partly allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {“CPC” for brevity}, to permit him to make consequential amendments in the suit. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.1978 of 2009 filed the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 13.02.2009 in I.A.No.69 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, in allowing the application filed under Order I Rule 8 and Section 151 CPC, to permit him to sue the above suit both on his behalf and also in the benefit of all the creditors of the first defendant in a representative capacity. The facts, which are necessary for disposal of these two revisions, are that in the main suit, which was purportedly filed under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 {“the Act” for brevity}, the plaintiff apparently sought to avoid the sale transaction by the defendants. Originally, the entire case rested on the ground that it is a colourable transaction not supported by consideration. Since no specific plea, as contemplated under Section 53 of the Act, has been taken, the present applications are filed. After considering the submissions made from both the sides and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that both the applications came to be filed at the stage of arguments, i.e., only after recognizing certain errors, which are coming against the plaintiff and has taken recourse to the same. Be that as it may, if really the suit is to be converted into representative capacity one, necessarily it requires a total elaborate publication apart from allowing fresh evidence to be recorded. In regard to the amendment application is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that he is not prepared to lead any further evidence, if such amendment is allowed and whatever evidence already recorded is enough to support his case. In view of the same, I do not find any justification in allowing the suit being converted into a representative capacity at this very belated stage. Accordingly, both the revisions are allowed and orders dated 13.02.2009 in I.A.Nos.69 and 70 of 2009 are set aside. Consequently, the said applications are allowed. it is made clear that in view of the specific undertaking given by the learned counsel, there will be no further trial nor any further evidence can be permitted to be received or adduced. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit on merits in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 13th August 2010 RRB