THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5685 and 5578 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.445 of 2003 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, for the relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the open RCC slab of the rear portico abutting the house of the petitioner. The trial of the suit commenced and it is said to have been concluded. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.967 of 2007 to reopen the suit and I.A.No.968 of 2007 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to permit her to amend the suit, only to the extent of relief portion. According to her, the extent of offending portion was not mentioned and on verification of the site, it is felt that removal of the slab to the extent of 36” X 4” would meet the purpose. The trial Court dismissed both the applications, through separate orders, dated 11.10.2007. Hence, these two revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The relief claimed by the petitioner was the one for mandatory injunction. She wanted a direction to the respondent to remove the slab abutting her portion. Her grievance was that the slab was protruding into her premises and that the water is flowing from the slab into her premises. After culmination of the trial of the suit, the petitioner felt that instead of claiming the relief as regards the entire portion of the slab, it would be sufficient, if the slab is to the extent of 36” X 4”. Though the relief claimed in the I.A. is also one for amendment, it cannot be equated or compared with the routine amendments, through which, either fresh prayers are incorporated or the existing one is altered substantially. The effect of the present amendment is only to specify the offending portion of the slab with measurements. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondents, if the amendment is ordered. As a matter of fact, no fresh evidence needs to be adduced even if the prayer is amended. The bar contained in proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC cannot be imported to this factual scenario. For the foregoing reasons, the revisions are allowed and the orders under revisions are set aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.967 and 968 of 2007 are allowed subject to, however, condition that in case the respondent intends to adduce evidence in the context of amended prayer, it shall be open to her to do so, on a specified date. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 26th AUGUST, 2009. kvni