IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1847 OF 2007 Between : K.V.Latha and another .... PETITIONERS AND C.Manohar and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1847 OF 2007 ORDER: This is a plaintiffs revision, who are aggrieved by the orders of the Court below dismissing their application dated 20.03.2007 in I.A. No. 740 of 2006 in O.S.No.15 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, whereunder and whereby, the petition under Order-VI Rule 17 read with 151 C.P.C. to amend the plaint schedule, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioners herein filed O.S.No.15 of 2004 before the Court below for specific performance and also sought alternative relief of refund of advance amount. Now, the present petition was filed seeking further alternative relief to claim that in case the respondents are found to be not the owner of the entire extent of suit schedule property, they may execute and register sale deed to the extent of their title in the suit property. The Court below rejected the proposed amendment on the ground that the plaintiffs having entered into an agreement and having filed the suit for specific performance, cannot contend that the respondents may or may not have title to the entire suit schedule property. 4. I am unable to accept the above said reasoning as the plaintiffs are seeking only an alternative relief and the said proposed relief does not amount to the plaintiffs relinquishing their main claim in the specific performance suit, and the relief now sought to be taken is only an alternative relief to the main relief. Even in the absence of a specific prayer, as proposed by the petitioners, as an alternate to the main relief, the Court can always mould the relief while passing final orders in the suit. Therefore, there is no impedment for permitting such amendment. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a particular relief, is a matter to be decided by the trial Court while trying the suit. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.740 of 2006 in O.S.No.15 of 2004 filed by the petitioners shall stand allowed. The respondents are at liberty to file additional written statement, if any, within a period of six weeks from today. The trial Court shall frame appropriate issues, hear and dispose of the suit, as expeditiously and possible, preferably within a period of six months. ___________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J SEPTEMBER, 08, 2010 Note: Issue C.C.by one week. (B/o) YVL