( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 16-11-1990 made in la. No. 452/89 in A. S. No. 35/88 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Krishna at machilipatnam.

( 2 ) THE unsuccessful-respondent in LA. No. 452/89 in A. S. No. 35/88 is the Revision petitioner. The Revision Petitioner had filed the present Revision aggrieved by the order of the Court below allowing an application for amendment.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief are that the Revision petitioner is none other than the son-in-law of the respondent who is an old lady and she filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction relating to immovable property on the ground that the Revision Petitioner had caused some obstruction. The defence taken by the Revision Petitioner was that though the property stands in the name of the respondent-plaintiff, consideration was paid by him and he was in possession of the property in his own right. The suit was no doubt, dismissed. But as far as the ownership of the respondent-plaintiff is concerned, it appears, it was upheld. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent-plaintiff had filed A. S. No. 35/88 on the file of I Additional District judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam and also filed the present application LA. No. 452/89 seeking amendment of the plaint praying for the alternative relief of possession. The application was stoutly resisted by the opposite party, but however the Court below after considering all the facts and circumstances had allowed the said amendment application LA. No. 452/89 and aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.

( 4 ) SRI Anjaneya Sharma, the learned counsel representing the Revision petitioner had strenuously and emphatically contended that the order of the Court below is totally an unjustified one and cannot be sustained for the reason that it totally changes the nature of the suit and also the cause of action, and the relief prayed for under the guise of alternative prayer is only to get over the judgment made by the trial Court and such a course is impermissible in law. The learned Counsel further had contended that the proposed amendment now is without a pleading and without any foundation and such amendment cannot be allowed. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to para 5 of the plaint and several other allegations and contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below had totally erred in allowing the amendment permitting the respondent-plaintiff to amend the plaint seeking the relief of possession also in the alternative to the original relief of permanent injunction prayed by her in the suit. The learned counsel also placed reliance on several decisions in support of elaborate submissions made by him in this regard.

( 5 ) SRI C. Ramachander Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- plaintiff in the suit and the appellant in the appeal A. S. No. 35/88 had strenuously contended that when an application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the court below exercising discretion, while exercising revisional jurisdiction such an order need not be interfered with. Further the learned Counsel contended that since appeal is continuation of suit, the amendment of pleading can be allowed even at the appellate stage. The learned counsel also had stated that the present amendment is not a new case altogether and it is not inconsistent with the original pleading, but the present amendment is only seeking an alternative relief of possession apart from the main relief of permanent injunction. It was also contended that in the event of the appeal being dismissed, the respondent-plaintiff again will be driven to another litigation and she is already an old lady and the court below with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the case thought it fit to allow the amendment application and hence there is no jurisdictional error involved in the matter warranting