THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3242 and 3549 OF 2010 ORDER: Since both the revisions arise out of the same suit, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. These civil revision petitions are filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.214 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The suit was filed by the petitioner - plaintiff for injunction simplicitor in the year 2006. It is the case of the petitioner that the suit schedule property was acquired by his wife pursuant to Will dated 16.12.1990 executed by her brother and his wife executed a Settlement Deed dated 03.11.2005 by which the property was settled on him. It is submitted that the trial in the suit was already concluded and the matter is posted for arguments on 30.07.2010. The application in I.A.No.104 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with 151 C.P.C. to amend the plaint to seek the relief of declaration and another application in I.A.No.106 of 2010 was filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to implead the wife of the petitioner-plaintiff as first plaintiff in the suit. Both the applications are dismissed by the trial court. Hence, these two revision petitions are filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as the respondents-defendants are denying the title of the petitioner, he sought amendment of the prayer in the plaint to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is also submitted that since the property was settled on the petitioner by his wife pursuant to Settlement Deed dated 03.11.2005, the court below ought to have allowed the applications for amendment of the plaint and for impleadment of his wife as the first plaintiff. By virtue of amendment to proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced, 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. In this case it is to be noted that not only the trial has commenced in this case but it has concluded and the matter is coming up for arguments from 30.07.2010. The very basis for claiming title is Settlement Deed dated 3.11.2005 which is executed much prior to the filing of the suit itself. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to allow these applications at this point of time. As much as the trial is concluded, any permission for amendment and impleadment as sought for by the petitioner will cause prejudice to the case of the respondents- defendants. Although the counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of RAMCHANDRA SAKHARAM MAHAJAN v DAMODAR TRIMBAK TANKSALE[1] but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the stage of the proceedings, the judgment would not render any assistance to the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the orders of the Court below warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Dt. 20.12.2010 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3242 and 3549 OF 2010 Dt. 20.12.2010 [1] (2007) 6 SCC 737