HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.318 OF 2010 DATE:21-04-2011 BETWEEN Gudaru Gangajala …Petitioner AND Gudaru Sambrajyam …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.318 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner-plaintiff filed O.S.No.140 of 2001 for permanent injunction. After commencement of trial, she filed the impugned I.A.NO.203 of 2009 for amendment of plaint seeking declaration and consequential injunction on the ground that as the defendant disputed her title over the plaint schedule property, she was advised to file the impugned I.A. for amendment of the plaint suitably. It is not in dispute that the respondent-defendant filed the suit for permanent injunction against the husband of the petitioner- plaintiff in O.S.No.39 of 2001, in which, she obtained an ex parte injunction and the same is in force. After filing the said suit, the husband of the petitioner intelligently brought into existence the forged document in favour of the petitioner and filed the present suit with regard to the same schedule property covered by O.S.No.39 of 2001. Trial in both the suits was completed and when the suits were posted for arguments, the defendant filed a petition to re-open the suit and to re-call P.W.1 and on allowing the said I.A., P.W.1 was recalled. After O.S.No.39 of 2001 was reserved for judgment after hearing both sides, the impugned I.A. came to be filed for amendment of the plaint for declaration of title which is not maintainable. Since the trial has already been concluded and as the cause of action alleged in the plaint differs from the cause of action on amendment, and as no reason was shown as to why the said declaration was not sought for when the suit was filed, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled for amendment of plaint and accordingly dismissed the I.A. by the impugned order. The reasoning adopted by the trial Court in dismissing the impugned I.A. does not suffer from any illegality since trial in both the suits was concluded, arguments were heard and therefore, filing the impugned I.A. at that stage is only to protract the litigation. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. APRIL 21, 2011 Tsr.