1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.7.2010 in IA No.182 of 2010 in OS No.898 of 2003 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit. He filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The respondents filed the written statements refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. Trial commenced and concluded. The matter is coming up for arguments.

3. At this stage, the petitioner filed IA No.182 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC contending that during the pendency of the suit, taking advantage of the petitioner's absence at a time that he was sick and hospitalized and his family members were there in a hospital attending on him, the respondents made construction of a house in a part of the plaint schedule property forcibly and he be permitted to amend the plaint by seeking an additional relief of mandatory injunction apart from making other amendments in the body of the plaint.

4. Counter-affidavit was filed by 2nd respondent denying the allegations made by, the petitioner, contending that this application is filed only to drag on the matter and alleging that the story stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed accompanying this I.A., is false. It is also pleaded that the amendment sought is barred by limitation and that the petitioner should have also sought the relief of declaration of title.

5. By order dated 26.7.2010, the Court below dismissed this application on the ground that it was filed when the matter was coming up for arguments and that the affidavit filed in support of the application is vague, as the date of the alleged construction of the house by the respondents is not mentioned therein.

6. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8. None appears for other respondents even though notice was served. 1st respondent is stated to have died.

8. The learned Counsel for petitioner contended that since the construction alleged by petitioner had occurred during the pendency of the suit and after the trial has commenced, the Court below ought to have permitted the amendment of the plaint and it erred in dismissing the I.A. filed seeking amendment of plaint. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and others v. K.K. Modi and others, 2006 (3) ALD 61 (SC) = AIR 2006 SC 1647 and Rajaram Narayan v. Rajaram, AIR 1996 MP 12, wherein the decision of the Punjab High Court in K.L. Mangal v. Arun Mishra, AIR 1958 Pun. 460, was relied upon.

9. The learned Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, contended that there is no error in the order passed by the Court below and that the application for amendment filed by petitioner was rightly rejected by the Court below. He reiterated that the application was filed at a belated stage and was rightly rejected. He placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Angati Tatayya v. Vakada Sanyasirao, 2012 (6) ALD 714.

10. I have noted the submissions of both sides.

11. Order VI Rule 17 CPC states:

"17. Amendment of pleadings the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that is spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."

As can be seen from the above provision, normally after trial has commenced, application for amendment would not be allowed unless the party seeking am