THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5569 OF 2010 Dated:16.09.2011 Between: Sathi Mula Reddy .. Petitioner And Boppana Satyam (died) and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5569 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff. He instituted O.S.No.20 of 2009 for declaration of title and consequential injunction against one Boppana Satyam in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring 600 sq. yards of vacant site situated at Pidimgoyyi Village near Rajahmundry. During pendency of the suit, the sole defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 2 to 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.606 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying the Court to permit him to amend the plaint by adding an alternative relief of possession. In the affidavit accompanying the said application, he alleged that the defendants are contending that the plaintiff is not in possession and that after death of the sole defendant they alone are in possession of the suit schedule property. The application was opposed by the defendants. By impugned order dated 20.08.2010, the trial Court dismissed the said application, aggrieved by which the plaintiff filed the instant revision. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. In Paragraph No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that two months prior to filing of the suit, when he went to the suit schedule site, he found encroachment by the adjoining owner to an extent of 273 sq. yards on the eastern side and on the western side. Further, he alleged in the affidavit as noticed supra that the defendants are claiming possession and denying the plaintiff’s possession. The suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. When after filing the suit the plaintiff alleged that the possession is being denied by the defendants, who thus claimed to be in possession, such an amendment cannot be denied. In case, an amendment is denied after getting a declaratory decree, the plaintiff would be forced to file another suit for recovery of possession. The power vested in Court under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC can always be exercised to prevent multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter. In that view of the matter, this Court finds force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. In the result, for the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently, I.A.No.606 of 2010 shall stand allowed permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint. Such amended plaint shall be filed before the Court below within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be open to the respondents/defendants to pray the Court below to frame an additional issue, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 16.09.2011 Note:- Dispatch C.C. in one week. (B/o) KH