THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1549 of 2010 DT.1.4. 2011 Between: Dalli Ramakrishna Reddy … Petitioner And Masthan Bibi and another … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.V.R. Subrahmanyam Counsel for respondent No. 1 : Sri Narasimha Rao Davuluri Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Srinivas Emani The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1549 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed questioning the orders dated 15.2.2010 in I.A. No. 37 (A) of 2010 in O.S. No. 479 of 2006 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka dismissing an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking to amend para VI of the plaint. The revision petitioner is plaintiff who filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 5.12.2003 executed by the first defendant in favour of plaintiff in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.25 cents. The case of the petitioner is that he has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards sale consideration of the suit property, however, inadvertently, in the suit filed for specific performance, the alternative relief to return the said amount together with subsequent interest could not be made, therefore he filed the above interlocutory application seeking to amend the prayer by adding alternative relief of return of Rs.15000/- with interest 24 % from the date of agreement of sale dated 5.12.2003 till the realisation in para VI of the plaint in sub clause (b) and order for Rs.90,000/- as compensation by way of damages in sub clause (c ). Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that only the chief examination affidavit of P.W.1 is filed and trial is not commenced and petitioner is entitled to seek amendment of plaint and placed reliance of judgment of this Court in VOJJALA JAYAMMA Vs. VOJJALA PULLAIAH[1]. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record. At the outset, since under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, the petitioner is entitled to ask for alternative relief only, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner as regards payment of compensation cannot be allowed even if the trial is not yet commenced. The application of the petitioner for amendment was dismissed on the ground that plaintiff in any suit is not permitted to amend the plaint, after the trial is commenced and the suit on hand is at the stage of cross examination of P.W.1. No doubt, application for amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial can be allowed, if the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if the trial is commenced, the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings even in respect of refund of Rs.15,000/-. However, in the event, if the trial was not commenced as on the date of filing the application for amendment, the petitioner can seek amendment only in respect of alternative relief i.e., refund of sale consideration of Rs.15,000/-. In the case on hand, the Court below in the order under revision has not specifically stated whether the trial has commenced or not, it only states that suit on hand is at the stage of cross examination of P.W.1. Therefore, the order under revision is set aside and the matter is remitted back. In the event the trial was not yet commenced as on the date of filing of the application seeking amendment, the Court below is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for amendment of plaint in respect of refund of sale amount of Rs.15,000/- alone and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Subject to above, the revision petition is allowed. No costs. _______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 1.4.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1549 of 2010 DT.1.4. 2011 [1] 2007 ALT (5) 597