THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Noss.3493 & 3486 of 2010 Date of Order: 21-04-2011 CRP No. 3493 of2010 Between: Gudibandi Rami Reddy ..Petitioner And 1. Kolli Radha Krishna Reddy and others ..Respondents The Court made the following Common Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3493 & 3486 of 2010 Common Order: Defendants 1 and 2 & 3 filed these revisions aggrieved by the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in allowing I.A.No.171 of 2010 filed for amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.2166 of 2001. The 1st respondent/plaintiff instituted the above suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 14-06-1980 specifically pleading in para-4 of the pliant that on the date of agreement the 1st defendant delivered possession of the property to the plaintiff with absolute rights. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the defendants have to execute the regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of sale agreement. Since the date of said agreement the plaintiff is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and raising cotton, groundnut, sugarcane crops every year as per the season basing on natural calamities. While so, the impugned IA was filed by the plaintiff stating that trial in the suit is almost completed and at that stage the defendants openly proclaiming and canvassing in the village by hook or crook they will forcibly dispossess him from the plaint schedule property by taking undue advantage of his old age. Therefore, he may be permitted to amend the plaint as under: (i) to add after para-8 as follows: “As the defendants have been proclaiming openly in the village that irrespective of the filing of the suit filed by the plaintiff they will dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property forcibly by illegal means with hooligan force and as such the defendants, their men and agents may be restrained by way of permanent injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property.” (ii) To add in the cause of action para after the words Vijayawada as follows: “As the defendants subsequent to the filing of the suit are proclaiming openly they will dispossess the plaintiff forcibly a permanent injunction is sought for against the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff” (iii) To add the following para in particulars of claim as 2nd para and also add the same in prayer portion as a (i) after prayed “a” “For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.” On allowing the above I.A. the present revisions are filed. Mr.Ravi Kumar Sadineni, learned counsel for the petitioner (D1) in C.R.P.No.3493 of 2010 and Mr.S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners (D2 and D3) in C.R.P.No.3486 of 2010 contended that alleged threatens made is subsequent to the filing of the suit. When the plaintiff himself admitted that the trial has already been commenced and almost closed, amendment cannot be allowed. Since it is a separate cause of action and not ancillary to main relief, the lower court ought not to have ordered amendment. To buttress their arguments reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in RAJKUMAR GURAWARA (DEAD) v. M/S.S.K.SARWAGI AND CO. PVT. LTD.[1] Admittedly, there is no variance in the plea as original pleaded and in the amendment sought for with regard to delivery of possession. Initially also the plaintiff pleaded about delivery of possession and continuous possession of the same not only in para-4 but also in para-8 of the plaint that the defendants executed possessor sale agreement by delivering the possession of the schedule property but failed to fulfil the terms and conditions of the agreement. The plaintiff has not sought for relief of permanent injunction initially but in view of threats by the defendants the present I.A. is filed seeking amendment by adding the paras, referred to above. It is only in elaboration but not a new fact; only in relief portion it is claimed ‘permanent injunction’. Even otherwise it is pleaded that the plaintiff was in possession since from the date of agreement of sale by raising different crops and seeks injunction not to disturb his possession by way of permanent injunction. To avoid the multiplicity of proceedings the lower court allowed the I.A. The judgment on which much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is misplaced to the facts of the present case. The discretion exercised by the lower court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 21-04-2011 Murthy [1] AAIR 2008 SC 2303