IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2307 OF 2008 Between: M.Ananthamma. … Petitioner And K.Janardhana Rao … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2307 OF 2008 ORDER: - Petitioner/plaintiff is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.2004 of 2006 in O.S.No.1730 of 2005, dated 22.08.2007, whereby the petition filed for amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed. Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction on the plea that under a possessory agreement of sale, dated 21.12.2002, she entered into possession of the suit schedule property by constructing R.C.C. roof shed and the respondent/defendant is interfering with his possession, in which he filed I.A.No.2004 of 2006 for amendment of the plaint seeking the relief of specific performance of the possessory agreement of sale dated 21.12.2002, in addition to the relief of permanent injunction. The said I.A. was dismissed by the trial court holding that on defendant filing written statement necessary issues were settled and the matter was posted for trial and at that stage, the amendment was sought, which will change the entire nature of the suit and cause of action and hence, the amendment sought for cannot be permitted and accordingly, dismissed the I.A. The Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC prohibits for allowing the amendment petition on commencement of the trial 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. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in {Ajendra Prasadji N.Pande v. Swami Keshav prakeshdasji N. (AIR 2007 SC 806)} held that the trial commences when the issues were settled and that no application for amendment is allowed after the trial has commenced. Therefore, the suit which was instituted in the year 2005 and when the case is coming for trial, filing of the above I.A. for amendment, which will change the cause of action and nature of the suit, cannot be permitted. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J December 22, 2010 lmv