1. Heard Sri R.Chandra Sekhar Reddy and Sri D.Madhava Rao, Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner and the contesting respondents.

2. C.R.P.M.P.No.1760/2009 had been filed praying for the relief of vacating the orders made in the C.R.P. and though the matter is coming under the caption of Interlocutory, at the request of the Counsel on record, the C.R.P. itself was heard finally and the same is being disposed of.

3. Sri R.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner would maintain that the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad totally erred in allowing the application permitting the amendment of the plaint since by allowing the proposed amendment, the character of the suit will be changed and the cause of action also would be totally changed. The Counsel also would maintain that the proposed amendment is totally contrary to the original pleading and the reliefs prayed for. The Counsel would further maintain that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stands or the purpose of the changed reliefs. The Counsel also would maintain that the very suit itself is not maintainable even for the relief of specific performance since it is in relation to a non-existing agreement and even otherwise now praying for possession being radically a different prayer altogether, such amendment would substantially alter the nature of the suit. The Counsel also incidentally pointed out to the Court fee and would maintain that even on that ground the order under challenge cannot be sustained. The Counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court in Rafeeq Ahmed Vs. Hameed Ahmed Khan and others 1.

4. On the contrary, Sri D.Madhava Rao, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents would maintain that it is no doubt true that a different relief is being prayed for, but the pleading is the same and the facts to be averred also being the same, in stead of driving the parties to institute yet another suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it would be just and proper to permit amendment and even otherwise in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judge, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Heard the Counsel on record.

6. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner/1st defendant being aggrieved of an order made in I.A.No.1601/2008 in O.S.No.714/2001 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The said application was filed by respondents 1 and 2/petitioners/plaintiffs praying for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deleting para-15 and adding the following paragraph:

"Plaintiffs also claim for redelivery of possession of the property which the defendants have illegally dispossessed and are in occupation without any right or entitlement. They have no right to occupy the property as the cellar and first floor portions of the property was never sold to them nor any document is executed. Their occupation is illegal, unlawful and therefore, they respondents liable to be ejected and possession be delivered which is more clearly described in Schedule-A of the property and for illegal use and occupation of the property the defendants are directed to pay damages at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, the schedule of property to be amended as Schedule-A which is already in the plaint and Schedule B to be added as all that house in the second floor constructed in Plot No.76 in Survey No.160 situated at P&T Employees Co.op. Housing Society Limited, Karkhana, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad bounded on the

North by: 30 ft. wide road

South by: Plot No.84

East by : Plot No.77

West by : Plot No.75"

7. It was averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that respondents 1 and 2 herein/petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance and injunction not to interfere w