This Court ordered notice before admission on 23.04.2008 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time.

2. Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel, entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and at the request of the learned counsel on record, this C.R.P., is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

3. Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would maintain that the amendment which had been prayed for in the plaint is only ancillary to the main relief prayed for in the suit. The learned counsel also would maintain that the Court below should have appreciated that the suit is filed for cancellation of gift deeds obtained by the defendants 1 and 2 by playing fraud, and consequential relief of possession, the amendment sought to be introduced would neither change the nature of the suit nor if allowed, would cause any prejudice at all. The learned counsel further would maintain that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment could have been allowed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, instead of dismissing the said application. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of A.P., & others v M/s.Pioneer Builders, A.P.,1.

4. On the contrary, Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondents, would maintain that the suit was posted for arguments and at that stage this application has been thought of. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the reasons that had been recorded by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool and would maintain that in the light of the amended proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) unless the conditions specified in the proviso are satisfied, the application cannot be allowed. The learned counsel also laid emphasis on the aspect that this application had been thought of at the belated stage when the suit was posted for arguments. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Chander Kanta Bansal v Rajinder Singh Anand2.

5. Heard both sides. Perused the reasons recorded by the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

6. The unsuccessful petitioner-plaintiff being aggrieved by the order made in I.A.No.949 of 2006 in O.S.No.7 of 2006 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, had preferred the present C.R.P. The said application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC praying for amendment of the plaint.

7. It is stated by the petitioner-plaintiff that she filed a suit for cancellation of three gift deeds obtained by the defendants 1 and 2 by playing fraud on her. But due to oversight, she omitted the prayer for consequential relief of possession of plaint schedule property. Further, it was stated that the relief of possession is only ancillary to the main relief of cancellation of gift deeds and if the amendment of the pleadings as prayed for is not allowed, she would be put to serious prejudice and in the event of amendment being allowed, the respondents would not be put to any serious prejudice.

8. The application was resisted by filing a counter affidavit in detail.

9. The learned Judge having framed the point for consideration at para-4, recorded reasons at paras-5, 6, 7 and 8, and ultimately dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P., had been preferred.

10. The learned I Additional District Judge, Kurnool had referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No.496 of 2002) and also referred to the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and laid emphasis on the language of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, and came to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff failed to show that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been prayed for earlier and accordingly, dismiss