THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1105 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioners/plaintiffs filed this revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the correctness of the order dated 7.11.2006 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in I.A.No.4974 of 2006 in O.S.No.748 of 1999. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for permanent injunction in the year 1999. When the matter was coming up for further examination of plaintiffs, after a lapse of 7 years, they filed the above I.A. under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking for amendment of plaint for declaration of title of plant ‘B’ schedule property and for consequential relief of recovery of possession, contending that after filing of suit, the defendants constructed the boundary wall without having any right or title over Plain ‘B’ schedule property. So mere suit for injunction is not sufficient and hence they sought for amendment of plaint for the relief of declaration of tile in plaint ‘B’ schedule property and consequential relief of recovery of possession. The lower Court observed that the defendants filed written statement in the main suit by taking specific plea that they are in possession of the suit property. Basing on the said plea issues are also settled by framing an issue “whether the suit filed for the relief of permanent injunction without seeking the relief of possession of plaint ‘B’ schedule property is maintainable in law”. So the plaintiffs are not in possession of plaint ‘B’ schedule property, and only after cross- examination of PW.1 on the said issue, when it was posted for further evidence of plaintiffs, they filed the above I.A., after a lapse of seven years, to cover up the lacunae in the suit, which would clearly go to show that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs are not in possession of the Plain ‘B’ schedule property, and hence the I.A filed or amendment of plaint cannot be allowed and accordingly dismissed the I.A. Hence the present revision petition. It is now fairly well settled that by seeking amendment of plaint, the nature of the suit cannot be changed, that too after seven years of filing of suit. The defendants, at the first instance, filed written statement claiming that they are in possession of the property and issues to the said effect were also framed about the maintainability of the suit. In view of the same, the above I.A. filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is only to protract the litigation. The discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the I.A., does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 17th December, 2009 Js.