( 1 ) THESE two Revision Petitions are disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the common order in I. A. No. 499/93 and I. A. No. 500/97 in a. S. No. 49/1992.

( 2 ) THE defendant is the petitioner. The Plaintiff respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession in an extent of Acs. 1. 55 cents out of Acs. 3. 08 cents in S. No. 556 of Balapalapalle village in Dhone Sub-District of Kumool District. He claims to have purchased Ac. 1. 55 cents and two other extents in Survey Nos. 482/3 and 482/2 of the same village aggregating to acs. 2. 65 cents under Ex. A-1 registered sale deed dated 2-1-1985 from one kanala Eswara Reddy (P. W. 3 ). The present suit is filed on the ground that the defendant without any manner of right was disputing his title and was trying to interfere with his possession of the disputed extent while the defendant resisted the suit on the plea that he purchased the entire extent of Acs. 3. 08 cents in Survey No. 556 including the disputed extent from one m. Thimmaiah (D. W. 2) under a registered sale deed dated 19-12-1989 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same throughout and that earlier it was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of D. W. 2 M. Thimmaiah and the Plaintiff has no manner of right or title to the disputed extent. On the basis of the evidence adduced by both parties the trial Court decreed the suit. During the pendency of the trial the plaintiff filed registered copy of the sale deed dated 13-5-1941 purporting to have been executed by one Chinna subbigadu and his son Maddigadu and another Maddigadu s/o Muddavaram subbigadu in favour of Vunnam Naganna in respect of 1 /4th share in Acs. 6. 94 cents in S. No. 480 and Acs. 3. 08 cents in S. No. 556 of Balapalapalle village and it was marked as Ex. A-3 on the side of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed this document for the purpose of establishing that the defendant s father namely p. W. 2 or his father had no title to the disputed extent or the entire land in s. No. 556. The defendant examined one Vannam Subbarayudu D. W. 3 son of vannam Naganna, Vendee under Ex. A-3 saledeed. The defendant further contended that D. W. 2 the defendant s vendor is the grandson of Chinna subbigadu who is one of the vendors under Ex. A-3 sale deed and that subsequent to A-3 sale deed D. W. 2 s father worked as farm servant under vannam Naganna and ultimately in the year 1965 in consideration of the wages payable to D. W. 2 s father, the said Vannam Naganna sold away the entire extent of Acs. 3. 08 cents in S. No. 556 of the suit village to D. W. 2 s father and delivered possession of the same to him in the same year i. e. 1965. Further no registered sale deed was executed in 1965 or any other document was executed evidencing the transfer in favour of D. W. 2 s father. However, the trial Court without taking into account the plea of the defendant decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Therefore, he filed an appeal A. S. 49/92 on the file of addl. Dist. Judge, Kurnool. Pending disposal of the appeal he filed LA. No. 499/93 for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 and I. A. No. 500/93 to adduce additional evidence. Both the I. As. were allowed and appeal was also allowed by the appellate Court on 18-2-1994 and remanded the matter to the trial Court. Against I. A. No. 499/93 C. R. P. No. 1829/94 was filed and against I. A. No. 500/93 C. R. P. No. l827/94 was filed. Against the judgment in A. S. No. 49/92 C. M. A. No. 665/94 was filed. The c. R. Ps. were allowed and consequently the C. M. A was also allowed and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Court directing it to dispose it of afresh after giving reasons. The appellate Court pursuant to the remand order dismissed I. A. Nos. 499/93 and 500/93. Aggrieved by the same the present c. R. Ps are filed. I. A. No. 499/93 is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment