ORDER :

T. Rajani, J.

1. This revision is preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs questioning the order, dated 4.6.2018, passed in IA No. 1095 of 2014 in OS No. 345 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, by virtue of which the Court below dismissed the petition, which was filed by the petitioners seeking to amend the plaint, adding the relief of declaration with regard to Bode canal XYRS, considering that the petition was filed at a very belated stage.

2. Impugning the said order, this revision is preferred on the grounds that the Court below ought to have allowed the application and that it incorrectly held that the plaintiffs failed to establish due diligence in filing the present application. The plaintiffs have showed due diligence in prosecuting the suit by adducing evidence. The defendants filed counter-claim, in view of which the amendment of plaint is necessitated. The Court below failed to consider that there is a specific pleading that there is no necessity to adduce further evidence in the event of allowing the present application. The Court below ought to have seen that to decide the dispute finally, adjudication of XYRS bode canal water course is very much essential.

3. Heard Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents.

4. The Counsel for the petitioners contends that it is only by virtue of the plea taken by the respondents/defendants in the counter-claim that the need for seeking for this amendment has arisen. Even if the same is considered as true, the observation of the Court below, that the counter-claim was filed on 15.11.2006 and issues were settled on 9.10.2009 while the present application is filed in the year 2014, holds good.

5. A perusal of the plaint at Paragraph 'f' would show that the defendants were proclaiming that they would close XYRS outlet and would obtain ex parte orders through the Court, against the plaintiffs, as if there is no XYRS outlet. Hence, from the said averments, it is clear that the plaintiffs had ample clue that the defendants would be denying the existence of XYRS outlet. Inspite of there being a clear apprehension and inspite of the same being spelled out in the plaint, the petitioners chose to restrict their prayer only for a permanent injunction.

6. The absence of due diligence in this case is not from the date of filing the counter-claim but from the date on which the defendants declared that they would close down the XYRS outlet and would get an ex parte order through Court as if there is no XYRS outlet and from the time of filing the suit.

7. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that when there is no prejudice that is caused to the other side, the amendment, as sought for, can be allowed. But in the considered opinion of this Court, mere non-resulting of prejudice cannot form a ground for allowing amendments as and when sought for. The petitioners have to lay a foundation for allowing such an amendment.

8. The Counsel for the petitioners relies on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs., (2008) 4 SCC 594 and relies on the observations of the Apex Court made at Paragraph 14 of the said judgment:

"We may, however, clarify that a prayer for declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to the plaintiffs title raises a cloud on the title of the plaintiff to the property. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown. An action for declaration, is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to the title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiff's title, it does not amount to raisi