IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.554 OF 2009 Between: Manchu Chandrayya …Petitioner A n d Mavauru Neelayya ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.554 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-12-2008 in I.A.No.259 of 2008 in O.S.No.81 of 2005, on the file Junior Civil Judge, Pathapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein, the plaintiff, for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, was allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/- to the defendant. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property and making any constructions thereon. According to the plaintiff, he purchased vacant site under a registered sale deed dated 27-05-1992 from his vendors Appa Rao and sons for a consideration of Rs.4,600/- and he constructed a slab house in 1997 leaving some vacant site towards K.C Road. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant is trying to take advantage of the mis- description of the western boundary in the sale deed and started claiming rights over the site between the plaintiffs’ house and the road and even mischievously trying to sell the said site to others. He, therefore, filed a suit for permanent injunction. He also filed a petition for temporary injunction. The petitioner-defendant filed a counter opposing the same. It is stated that the said petition was dismissed. The plaintiff alleges that taking advantage of the dismissal of the said application, the defendant encroached upon the disputed site and raised stone foundation. It is not disputed that on an application filed by the defendant, a Commissioner was appointed and after making local inspection, he filed a report noting the constructions appearing on the disputed site. The plaintiff, therefore, filed I.A.No.259 of 2008 seeking amendment of the plaint by adding the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the unauthorized construction. The petitioner-defendant opposed the said application contending that the western boundary of the plaintiff’s sale deed itself is recited as the site of the defendant and the defendant made construction over an area in excess of what he has purchased and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the disputed site and he perfected his title to the same by adverse possession also. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant would contend that even in the plaint, the plaintiff averred that the defendant made constructions in the disputed site, but he did not pray for mandatory injunction at the first instance and he is not entitled for the proposed amendment, that too after dismissal of the injunction application. In the plaint, the plaintiff merely stated that the defendant proclaimed to commit trespass and started making unauthorized construction in the suit property and the plaintiff protested against the illegal acts and at the intervention of the local panchayat elders, the illegal act was stopped and the defendant left the place threatening to occupy and raise foundation once again. The plaint does not state anywhere that construction was already made by the defendant. What all pleaded in the plaint is that the defendant made an attempt to make the construction and the plaintiff protested against the same and with the intervention of the elders, the attempt was thwarted. The specific case of the plaintiff is that subsequent to filing of the suit, the defendant encroached upon the disputed site and made illegal construction and the extent of the construction viz., the foundation walls is noticed by the Commissioner also. 4. The question as to whether the disputed site belongs to the plaintiff as claimed by him or to the defendant as alleged by him and whether or not the defendant made any construction in the disputed site subsequent to filing of the suit and whether or not the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction prayed for or to the mandatory injunction as proposed, are all matters to be considered during trial. The plaintiff initially filed the suit for permanent injunction. According to him, subsequent to filing of the suit, the defendant encroached upon the suit site and made certain constructions. It is for the plaintiff to establish the said contention during the course of trial. When the plaintiff alleges that certain event has taken place subsequent to filing of the suit, and, therefore, seeks to amend the plaint by incorporating necessary pleas pertaining to such alleged subsequent event and also prays for certain relief relating to such subsequent event, there cannot be any tenable objection for the defendant inasmuch as the proposed amendment would only help the Court to adjudicate the whole dispute in a comprehensive manner and render effective and substantial justice in the matter. The proposed amendment would not cause any prejudice to the defendant either, as he would be afforded an opportunity to file an additional written statement meeting the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment would further obviate multiplicity of proceedings. 5. Under those circumstances, it must be held that the impugned order, permitting the proposed amendment subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/- to the defendant, does not call for any interference, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st March, 2011 Lrkm.