THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.2505 of 2008 Dt.21-01-2011 Paritala Kodanda Ramudu ..Petitioner V. Gudivada VenkateswaraRao ..Respondent The court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.2505/2008 Oral Order This revision under Art.227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner- defendant is filed to revise the orders of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dt. 9-4-2008 passed in IA No.286/2008 in OS No.1960 of 2005, whereunder petition filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the above suit for eviction of the petitioner-defendant from the suit schedule property. Since in the plaint the plaintiff could not mention about the construction of the building and also about approval of the plan, he filed the present petition seeking amendment of the plaint to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff that the suit is filed within 10 years after construction, and A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Act,1960 do not apply to the building in question. The defendant filed a counter while opposing the petition stated that after completion of trial and when the matter is posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed the present application. The trial court by the impugned order dt. 9-4-2008 allowed the petition holding that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and to decide the issue involved in the suit, it is quite necessary to allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also counsel for the respondent. It is fairly well settled that it is always open for the court to permit the amendment of pleadings 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, to cause advance justice to the parties. Since the trial court already exercised the discretion and allowed IA and pursuant to allowing of the IA amendment has been carried out, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. He can always question the amendment, if ultimately suit is decided against him, in the appeal, as the same will not attain finality. The present case does not fall under any of the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in SURYA DEV RAI V. RAM CHANDER RAI (2003) 6 SCC 675), wherein it was held that if the order allowed to stand will earn immunity from correction at a later stage either in the appeal or suit. No infirmity is discernible in the impugned order passed by the trial court warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.21-01-2011 kmr