P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ). THIS revision petition is filed by the 1st defendant in the suit against the order passed by the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court allowing the amendment of plaint by the plaintiffs, who are respondents 1 to 8 herein.

( 2 ) THE suit - O. S. No. 3238 of 1979 was filed seeking permanent injunction against the 1st (sic. 2nd) defendant (Municipal Corporation) restraining demolition of the building and for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to construct house over the suit land and for permanently restraining the 2nd defendant from raising any objection. By means of the amendment petition, the 1st respondent-plaintiff wants to add the relief of declaration that the plaintiff shall be declared as owner, possessor and occupier of the suit plot in Sy. No. 187/1 ad measuring 215 sq. yards situate at Talab Chanchalam, imambada in Ward No. 17, Block No. 3, Hyderabad. The suit which was filed 17 years back was dismissed for default in the year 1984.

( 3 ) THIS Court by an order dt. 15-4-1993 in C. R. P. No. 4005 of 1992 set aside the order of dismissal. The suit was therefore restored to file. Nearly three years later, after the trial of the suit started, the petition for amendment was filed by the 1st plaintiff. The trial Court allowed the application subject to payment of costs while observing that the cause of action is not changed on account of the amendment and that the question of limitation does not arise as the plaintiff is claiming only title over the suit schedule property. It may be mentioned that the trial Court did not even make it a condition precedent for the filing of amended plaint that the suit should be revalued and the additional Court fee should be paid thereon.

( 4 ) FIRST of all, the reason for filing the highly belated application seeking a new relief by way of amendment of plaint is not at all convincing. The reason given is that some admission was made by the petitioner herein (1st defendant) in an earlier suit - O. S. No. 117 of 1968 on the file of IVth Additional Judge, city Civil Court. That suit was filed by Mallepally Co-operative Housing society against the plaintiff and 1st defendant in the present suit. It is the contention of the petitioner that in that suit, the petitioner admitted the title of Ghulam Samdani who is said to be the predecessor in title to the respondents- plaintiffs; but it is contended by the Respondents Counsel that a finding was given in that suit that the sale deed executed by Sri Ghulam Samdani was a forged and fabricated document. In the counter filed in the IA the petitioner has also made reference to various other suits between the same parties, viz. , o. S. No. 3603 of 1980, O. S. No. 3604 of 1980, O. S. No. 4413 of 1980 and O. S. No. 4445 of 1987, in all of which the respondents 1 to 8 or some of them failed. With this background of litigation, it is not known how the plaintiffs- respondents refrained from seeking the relief of declaration of title all these years. The alleged admission of the petitioner was made even at the time of filing the suit. Thus, there is no convincing explanation for the belated move to amend the plaint. Nevertheless, on this short ground I am not inclined to set at naught the amendment allowed by the Trial Court keeping in view the principle that the amendment can be permitted at any stage and in view of the further fact that the trial has not yet commenced.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that the nature of the suit itself is changed by allowing the amendment and therefore the amendment shall not be permitted. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in konduru Suri vs. Konduru Ramulamma. In that case the suit was filed for perpetual injunction claiming that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and the respondents were trying to dispossess him. In the written statement the defendant set up title in themselves. During the pendency of the trial the plaintiff filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document