THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.1623 and 1956 of 2008 Dt.21-01-2011 CRP No.1623/2008 1. Ete John Nageswara Rao and another ..Petitioners V. 1. Sunkara Vasudeva Rao and another ..Respondents The court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.1623 and 1956 of 2008 Commonl Order Since in these revision petitions, some of the parties are one and the same, and the issue involved is identical, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. The revision petitioners in both the revision petitions are defendants 1 and 2 in OS No.4161/2004 and OS No.4162/2004 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. They filed the revision petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, to revise the orders dt. 14-3-2008 passed in IA No.1049/2006 in OS No.4161/2004 and IA No.1048/2006 in OS No.4162/2004 respectively, whereunder petitions filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Sec. 151 CPC r/w Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking amendment of the paints have been allowed. Admittedly, the suits filed earlier seeking mandatory injunction and permanent injunction are converted into suits filed for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction on allowing amendment. Learned counsel for petitioners in both the revision petitions contends that the plaintiff’s vendor by name Vallepu Subbayamma earlier filed WP No.179/88 and withdrew the same and after withdrawal she filed OS No.580/1990 and the said suit was also dismissed as withdrawn and later she sold the property to the respective plaintiffs in the present suits. In view of the withdrawal of the suit filed earlier ie., OS No.580/90 by the third defendant in the suits, who sold the property to the plaintiffs, they are not entitled to declaration as said relief is barred by limitation. The trial court ignoring the said fact allowed the petitions, which are liable to be set-aside. The question whether the plaintiffs who purchased the property from the third defendant, Vallepu Subbayamma, under registered sale deeds in the year 2002 can file the suit for recovery of possession from the defendants on withdrawal of WP No.179/88 filed against second defendant and his father and two others and OS No.580/1980 filed against the second defendant and his father and another by Vallepu Subbayamma, is a matter which can be decided on a issue to be framed by the trial court in that regard. Suffice it to say, the plaintiffs filed the present petitions seeking amendment only in the year 2006. Whether, the suit is bared by limitation as on the date of amendment, is another question to be decided by the trial court. In that view of the matter, the trial court is directed to frame necessary issues in that regard and give an opportunity to the petitioners/defendants for filing additional written statement and decide the said issues. Since the order allowed will not attain finality and the same is always subject to filing additional written statement and leading evidence by the defendants, this court is not inclined to revise the impugned orders. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dissmissed with the above observation. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.21-01-2011 kmr