ORDER :

G. Shyam Prasad, J.

1. This revision is arising out of the order, dated 26.02.2018 passed in I.A. No. 216 of 2018 in O.S. No. 140 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs who have filed O.S. No. 140 of 2011 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule path way.

3. The revision petitioners have filed I.A. No. 279 of 2011 under Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC in the above suit for grant of interim injunction, and I.A. No. 216 of 2018 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint. The amendment sought in plaint to add the paragraph 7(a) after the paragraph-7 in the plaint which reads as under:

"7(a) the defendants in and around the month of May 2011 constructed compound wall by abstracting the plaint schedule cart way at E and F points taking advantage of their strength and plaintiff's weakness. The plaintiffs could not resist such illegal effort made by the defendants and therefore the plaintiffs lost their egress and ingress to reach Rajaveedhi through A, B, C, D cart way, Pending suit, hence the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction to remove the obstructions made by the defendants at E and F points."

4. The case of the petitioners is that they have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents, and for interim injunction filed I.A. No. 279 of 2011. The trial Court granted ex parte injunction orders which were subsequently made absolute. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the respondents with political influence forcibly constructed a compound wall obstructing the plaint schedule path way at point E & F knowing fully that the court has already granted injunction over the said path way. The plaintiffs are unable to reach ABCD cart way due to construction of wall at E and F. Therefore the petitioners have filed an application seeking for amendment of plaint to add the relief of mandatory injunction for removing the obstruction made by the respondents at E and F points.

5. The respondents have filed their counter in the said application denying all the material allegations in the petition. They have stated that the photographs filed by the petitioners would show that the respondents have constructed the wall in the month of May 2011 at E and F point, and the said wall was in existence even by the date of filing of the suit. It is further stated that the respondents have taken a plea in their written statement that the plaint plan was incorrect as the material facts have been suppressed by the petitioners in respect of the alleged passage ABCD. It is further stated that there was no proper explanation as to why the petitioners did not take appropriate action at the relevant time and filing the present petition after lapse of 7 years. It is further Stated that the petition is barred by limitation as such it cannot be allowed. The proposed amendment would change the cause of action for filing the suit, therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court on consideration of the submissions made by both the counsel dismissed the petition filed for amendment of plaint as the amendment completely changes the nature of the suit, which prejudices the rights of the defendants.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

8. The point that arises for consideration in this case is:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for proposed amendment in view of the provision under Order VI Rule 17 CPC?

9. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the application filed by the revision petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of plaint was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that it changes the nature of cause of action.

10. On consideration of the submissions of both the counsel and looking into