( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 24-10-1997 passed by district Munsif, Andole at Jogipet in LA. No. 155 of 1997 arising out of O. S. No. 33 of 1991 whereby and whereunder petitioner s application for amendment of plaint filed in terms of Order VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed. By reason of the said application the petitioner sought for the following amendment. " (A) In the plaint below the cause title the claim mentioned as suit for perpetual injunction may be deleted and in the same place the suit for recovery of possession of the suit house may be added. In para No. 2 of the plaint of line one may be amended as that the plaintiff is the owner and was in possession over by deleting the para two of the first line. In para No. 4 of the plaint line 16 to 19 may be amended as the defendant with such evil intention and with the help of unsocial elements came on the suit land on 16-8-1997 and dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit house and illegally occupied by deleting the lines 16 to 19. The para 6 of the plaint may be deleted completely and in the same para it may be added that the suit is for recovery of possession of the suit house and for the purpose of the same the suit is valued at Rs. 15,000. 00 upon which the 3/4th of the value comes at rs. 11,250/- for which the Court fee of rs. 876/- is paid under Section 34 (2) of the A. P. Court Fees and Suits valuation Act which is sufficient . (b) In the prayer of the plaint of the first para may be deleted completely and in the same place it may be mentioned as to pass judgment and decree for recovery of suit residential house bearing G. P. No. 5. 30 (old), 6-13 (new) situated at Shankarampet a village and Mandal. "

( 2 ) THE learned trial Judge by reason of the impugned order inter alia held:"as the petitioner/ plaintiff has not taken proper steps at appropriate stage i. e. , immediately after filing the written statement by the respondent/ defendant- in the year 1991 the petitioner is not entitled to file the present petition at this stage though he is asserting that he was dispossessed from the suit house on 16-8-1997 only. This fact appears to be not genuine in view of the fact that the defendant has already asserted in his written statement that he is in possession in the suit house under an agreement of sale executed in the year 1989. In view of all the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the clear opinion that the request of the petitioner/plaintiff to permit him to amend his pleadings does not deserve for any consideration and is liable to be dismissed. "

( 3 ) IT is a settled principle of law that an application for amendment should be considered liberally. Only because there has been some delay on the part of the petitioner herein, the same by itself would not prejudice the opposite party. In any event, the opposite party has not been able to show that he is prejudiced in any way in the event that amendment allowed.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, however, has relied upon a decision of this Court in gorantla Kondalaryudu vs. M/s, Marvel organics. In the said decision absolutely a new case was made out. The learned Judge held thus:"thereby, the plaintiff wanted to delete or add certain things in the plaint which should not only decide the truth but also change the nature of the pleadings to prejudice the defendants in regard to the defence already taken and the valuable admissions got by means of the pleas already existing. When the proposed amendments were really intended to remove any clerical errors by introducing or substituting new facts, there was no ground to reject the amendment. The question is not whether the amendments are intended to delay the matter. The question is whether the amendments were necessary and proper to be allowed. On the face of it, the proposed amendments were by way of explanatory notes or reply to the defence taken by the respondents rega