This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 151 C.P.C. aggrieved by order dated 31-01-2012 passed I.A.No.11 of 2011 in A.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur (I.A) which was filed against judgment and decree dated 01-12-2010 passed in O.S.No.184 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur (O.S).

2. The petitioner herein is also the petitioner in the I.A. and first plaintiff in the O.S. whereas the respondent herein is also the respondent in the I.A. and defendant in the O.S. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the O.S.

3. It is necessary to note the facts of the case for proper appreciation of the matter, they are as follows:

According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property originally belongs to one Chinna Ramanna, resident of Alaganur village. As he had no issues, he gifted the entire suit schedule property to them (the plaintiffs 1 and 2) through a gift deed dated 12-02-1962 which reveals that after the death of the executants, the property should devolve upon his wife Yellamma with limited rights and after her death should go to them (the plaintiffs 1 and 2). Accordingly they (the plaintiffs 1 and 2) became the owners of the property and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same accordingly. But the defendant tried to encroach the plaint schedule land without any manner of right. Hence, they filed the suit for permanent injunction.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It s stated that the surname of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 is ‘Valiche’ but not ‘Pikkili’ as stated in the plaint whereas the surname of the defendant is ‘Pikkili’ which is omitted in the plaint purposely. Chinna Ramanna did not execute any gift deed in favour of the plaintiffs keeping life interest over his wife Boya Yellamma on 12-02-1962. It is claimed that the Tahsildar, Nandikotkur issued assignment patta in favour of him (the defendant) on 06-03-1984 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land.

5. Along with the suit the plaintiffs filed a petition for interim injunction against the defendant which was allowed. However, on appeal in C.M.A.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, the injunction order was set aside. The claim of the plaintiffs is that on account of that the defendant occupied the property.

6. For the plaintiff the first plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and examined N.M.C. Umar Saheb as PW-2 and also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant got himself examined as DW-1 and also examined Venkata Subbaiah as DW-2 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-5.

7. After full-fledged trial the trial Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable on the ground that it was filed without seeking the relief of declaration of title. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs filed the appeal (A.S.No.1 of 2011). During its pendency, the first plaintiff filed the I.A. under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint as pleaded in the petition and to make consequential amendments in the plaint. The appellate Court after hearing the parties dismissed the I.A. on the ground that the plaintiffs got knowledge about the relevant facts long prior to the filing of the suit and they cannot seek the amendment now.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that as the event of occupation of the property by the defendant took place during the proceedings of the suit, and as necessity arose to seek for the possession of the property following which the declaration of title of the property also should be sought, the I.A. in question was filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. accordingly before the appellate Court but the appellate Court dismissed the plea observing that it was filed at a belated stage which, therefore, is not tenable. He also has stated that no evidence will be recorded for the plaintiffs consequently. He has placed