HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1016 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No. 287 of 2004, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2009 made in I.A. No.678 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The petitioners filed the above Suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Suit schedule properties covered by Survey No. 131. It is not in dispute that the Suit is of the year 2004 and the evidence on the side of the petitioners-plaintiffs is already over and the matter was coming up for recording the evidence of the respondents-defendants. At that stage, the application in I.A. No. 678 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking to amend the plaint by deleting Survey No.131 and to insert Survey No. 130 in place of Survey No.131. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application. Hence, the present revision. In the instant case, it is to be noticed that the documents, which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to Survey No.131. Even in the Suit, the petitioners-plaintiffs mentioned the very same survey number, which was mentioned in the sale deeds. I have perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court and the reasons recorded by it for rejecting the application. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2004 and the petitioners- plaintiffs filed the present application in I.A No. 678 of 2009 seeking amendment of the plaint after closure of their evidence, that too when the matter was coming up for the evidence of the respondents-defendants. Having perused the order of the trial Court, I am of the view that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the present application very belatedly and no valid reasons have been assigned by them for getting over the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. Further, it is also to be noticed that if the proposed amendment is permitted at this stage, certainly, it will cause lot of prejudice to the case of the respondents-defendants. For the aforesaid reasons and having satisfied with the findings recorded by the trial Court, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in the revision petition filed under Article 227. The revision is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 22nd March, 2010 pnb