Zaheerabad Municipality, the respondent herein filed O.S.No.139 of 2007 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, against the petitioners herein for the relief of declaration to the effect that it is the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.18.11 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.145 and 146 of Zaheerabad Revenue Village, shown in plaint A and B schedule; for perpetual injunction, and for direction to the petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the property. It was pleaded that Ac.225.03 guntas, including the suit land, was earmarked by the Jagir Administration for expansion of the Aabadi of the town and on abolition of the Jagirs, the land vested in the Government and thereby accrued to the respondent. Reference was also made to the litigation that ensued as regards the land, as well as to various proceedings.

The petitioners filed the written-statement, opposing the suit. Their plea is that the land was held by private individuals as patta and was classified as agricultural in nature. According to them, Abdul Hafeez Khan was the original owner of the land and that it was purchased from his legal heirs by the father of defendants 1 and 2 in the year 1352 fasli, through a registered document.

The trial Court framed issues on the basis of the pleadings in the suit. One of the issues was “whether the suit lands are vacant lands and if not whether the suit is maintainable without seeking relief of mandatory injunction”. Taking note of this issue, the respondent filed I.A.No.10 of 2012 with a prayer to permit it to amend the plaint to incorporate the relief of mandatory injunction and to add sentences in the plaint, supporting the prayer, which is proposed to be added. The petitioners filed a counter, opposing the I.A. The trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 10-02-2012. Hence this revision Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit was filed in the year 2007, whereas the I.A. was filed five years thereafter, seeking amendment of the plaint. He submits that the application is barred under proviso to Rule 17 of Order XVI C.P.C. He contends that the affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination of PW-1 was filed in the suit, and thereby the trial is deemed to have commenced. Alternatively, learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondent did not even plead that in spite of due diligence, the facts which are sought to be added through the proposed amendment were not noticed, when the suit was filed, or that any new development has taken place, warranting such amendment. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in VIDYABAI AND OTHERS v. PADMALATHA AND ANOTHER (2009) 2 SCC 409), CHANDER KANTA BANSAL v. RAJINDER SINGH ANAND (2008) 5 SCC 117) and certain other decisions. He has also addressed arguments on the purport of the expressions “commencement of trial”, and “set down”, that are relevant in this context.

Sri S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the proposed amendment is nothing but expansion of what is already contained in the plaint and the effort was only to add precision. He contends that the bar contained under the proviso to Rule 17 of Order XXI C.P.C. would get attracted, if only trial has commenced and that in the instant case, the trial did not commence. According to him, the right of a party to seek amendment of pleadings cannot be scuttled by reckoning time from the date of filing of the plaint, as long as the trial did not commence. He cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS v. MANOHAR SINGH AND ANOTHER (2006) 6 SCC 498).

The respondent filed the suit, claiming the reliefs of declaration of title and injunction, as regards fairly vast extent of land, within the limits of the Municipality. The petitioners, on the other hand, disputed the very classification of the land and based their title on a purchase made about half a centu