( 1 ) HEARD Sri Mahadeva, the counsel representing the revision petitioner and sri Ramesh the learned counsel representing the respondents.

( 2 ) THIS Court on 18-8-2005 ordered notice before admission and the interim stay was granted for a period of four weeks. The counsel representing the respondents had entered appearance and the Civil Revision petition is heard at length and the same is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

( 3 ) SRI Mahadeva, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 519 of 2002 on the file of principal Juniorciviljudge, Proddutur would contend that the petitioner, as plaintiff filed i. A. No. 641 of 2005 in the said suit praying for amendment. The learned counsel would also contend that the petitioner filed the application praying for alteration of the plaint plan in view of the report of the Commissioner and the plan filed by the Commissioner. The learned counsel would also submit that this can be taken as a subsequent event and inasmuch as liberty was prayed for when a prior similar application had been dismissed, the said order would not come in the way of this Court in considering the present application and civil Revision Petition on merits. The learned counsel also explained that the affidavit of chief-examination was filed on 30-9-2004. But, however, inasmuch as the main provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure (in short hereafter referred to as code ) specifies "at any stage of proceedings", the same can be allowed inasmuch as this is only a subsequent event and also in view of the fact that the petitioner- plaintiff has been prosecuting the litigation with all diligence. The learned counsel however in all fairness would submit that this would be a post-trial amendment and not a pre-trial amendment and also would submit that the suit itself is instituted after the amendment Act 22 of 2002 coming into force and hence, the amended provision alone would be applicable.

( 4 ) PER contra Sri Ramesh the learned counsel representing the respondents would contend that the present application is not a bona fide one for the reason that even in the affidavit filed in relation to chief-examination nothing relating to this aspect had been specified. Apart from this aspect of the matter the learned counsel also would point out that similar application had been moved and the same was dismissed. The learned counsel would also submit that in spite of repeated adjournments, though the matter is an identified one the petitioner is not further proceeding with the matter and this application was thought of only with a view to delay the proceedings and hence there are no bona fides at all on the part of the petitioner.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel on record.

( 6 ) THE petitioner as plaintiff moved i. A. No. 641 of 2005 in O. S. No. 519 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, proddutur praying for amendment of the pleading. It is stated that he had taken a commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule property and it is also stated that he filed an affidavit in relation to the chief-examination on 30-9-2004 and the Court also imposed costs of Rs. 100/- in relation thereto and in view of the report and the plan the petitioner prayed for permission to alter the plaint plan. The said application was reslsted on the ground that the proposed amendment is not a bona fide one and it would amount to introducing a new cause of action. It is not in controversy between the parties that the petitioner already filed an application i. A. No. 494 of 2005 in the said suit praying for similar relief to amend the plaint plan and to change the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and the same was not pressed and consequently dismissed.

( 7 ) ORDER VI Rule 17 of the Code reads as hereunder. "amendment of Pleadings: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document