THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6091 of 2009 ORDER: The first respondent filed O.S.No.760 of 2008 in the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the petitioner and the second respondent for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, he filed I.A.No.522 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to amend the plaint to incorporate the prayer for recovery of possession. Through its order, dated 11.11.2009, the trial Court allowed the application. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client earlier filed O.S.No.214 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the first respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction and that the same has been decreed. He contends that the first respondent has instituted frivolous proceedings and filed various applications to harass the petitioner and I.A.No.522 of 2009 is one such. He has drawn the attention of this Court to a common order, dated 14.10.008, passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.4417 of 2008 and batch. It is, no doubt, true that this Court took an exception as to the conduct of the first respondent in filing frivolous applications and made a specific observation in this regard in the common order, dated 14.10.2008, passed in C.R.P.No.4417 of 2008 and batch. The fact, however, remains that O.S.No.760 of 2008 was filed for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, which clearly contradicts the decree passed in O.S.No.214 of 2005 filed by the petitioner. After realising the mistake, the first respondent filed an application to amend the plaint to incorporate the plea of recovery of possession. This, in fact, would put the record straight and recognise the decree passed in favour of the petitioner in O.S.No.214 of 2005. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner on account of the amendment to the plaint. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.01.2010 kdl