1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful petitioner–plaintiff, is directed against the order, dated 10.10.2017, of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri, passed in I.A.No.695 of 2017 in O.S.No.32 of 2010.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri V. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and of Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the material record.

3. The parties in this revision shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as arraigned in the suit.

4. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their men etcetera from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint ‘B’ schedule property, which is shown as ‘CDEF’ vacant site in the plaint plan, and for costs. The 1st defendant filed a written statement and is resisting the suit. A Commissioner, who was appointed, filed his report. Before commencement of trial, the plaintiff filed the instant Interlocutory Application before the trial Court for permission to amend the plaint to enable the plaintiff to seek the relief of declaration as regards ‘CF’ wall line with a width of 8 inches and length of about 65 feet and delivery of possession of the same after directing the defendants to remove the encroachments made in that site and to permit the plaintiff to have such constructions removed as per due process of law in the event the defendants fail to remove the same. The said petition was resisted by the contesting defendants by filing a counter. On merits and by the orders impugned in this revision, the trial Court dismissed the said petition of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court.

5. The case of the plaintiff in support of the request for amendment of the plaint and the submissions made on his behalf, in brief, are as under:

In the plaint, relief of perpetual injunction was sought in respect of CDEF vacant site and the complex wall of the plaint schedule property apart from other reliefs. Originally, late Gadamsetty Venkata Subbamma, who is the wife of the plaintiff, purchased the plaint schedule property (vacant site) in an extent of 191 ½ Square Yards, for valuable consideration, from Kota Nagendram and others, under a registered sale deed, dated 14.03.1990. An old building of B.C. Venkata Subbaiah used to exist on the Western side of the vacant site; and, the same was shown as Western boundary in the registered sale deed. Later, it was demolished by the said owner. Both the said Venkata Subbaiah and the wife of this plaintiff wanted to construct business complexes in their respective vacant sites. Both Venkata Subbaiah and the plaintiff, on behalf of his wife, entered into a MOU; and, it was agreed that the said Subbaiah and the plaintiff’s wife have to leave 4 ½ feet and 3 ½ feet of vacant sites respectively in between the proposed complexes for the purpose of passage and to reach Kota site from C.S. Puram Road on the North (shown as AB in the plaint plan). Accordingly, 3.6 feet is to be left by the wife of the plaintiff and to its further West 4.6 feet is to be left by the said Subbaiah making the total width of the passage 8 feet. The plaintiff’s wife constructed the business complex shown as BC in the plaint plan, that is, GVS shopping complex, in an area of width of 11.7 feet by leaving 8 inches width of vacant site i.e., CDEF abutting the Eastern wall of the complex, that is, CF wall of the plaint plan. After construction of the said complex, the wife of the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint A & B schedule properties, that is, ABCFGHI and CDEF vacant site & CF complex wall of the plaint plan, with absolute rights without any interference, till her death. The plaintiff’s wife died intestate, on 09.06.2007. Thereafter, the plaint schedule property dev