HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1197 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.76 of 2008 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of a construction that was being undertaken by the respondents. It is stated that during pendency of the suit, despite the orders passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.257 of 2008 filed in the suit, the respondents have constructed the building. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.219 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit him to amend the prayer by incorporating the relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the construction mentioned in Schedule-II. The application was opposed by the respondents on several grounds. They denied title of the petitioner over the land and stated the manner in which they brought about the construction. Through order, dated 20.12.2010, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. In a suit for the relief of perpetual injunction, the petitioner wanted to incorporate the prayer for mandatory injunction. The trial Court dismissed the application by taking into account the fact that I.A.No.257 of 2008 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. by the petitioner was dismissed on 13.08.2008 holding that the petitioner is not in possession of the property and that the present I.A., filed almost one and half years thereafter, cannot be allowed. In a way, the pronouncement is made on merits. Apart from the reason assigned by the trial Court, there are other grounds, which militate against the petitioner. The petitioner admits that the respondents have made construction upon the suit schedule site. Unless he prays for the relief of recovery of possession and if necessary claims the relief of declaration of title, there is no way that he can get any meaningful relief in the suit. Further, the relief of mandatory injunction must invariably be preceded by the relief of declaration. Viewed from any angle, the I.A. filed by the petitioner cannot be allowed. If so advised, the petitioner has to take certain steps, which will make the suit, as it stands now, meaningful, or has to file a separate suit. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:30.03.2011 GJ