ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A.No.199 of 2016 in O.S.No.923 of 2007, dated 07.09.2017 wherein and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint on the ground that amendment of plaint introduces a new case should not be allowed.

2. The case of the petitioner before the trial Court in brief is that, he filed suit against the respondents for declaration of his right and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after removing super structures therein. It is the contention of the petitioner/plaintiff that he is the owner in respect of 344.4 square yards of site including area shown in the plaint schedule, which he purchased under registered sale deed dated 12.06.2006 from T.Mohan Chand represented by General Power of Attorney agent Mr.C.R.K.Prasad and paid entire sale consideration, which site is shown as plot No.3 in the rough sketch filed along with the plaint and marked as ABCD. He submits that his vendor purchased the site from one Madhava Rao and his sons, who are original owners of the property under registered sale deed dated 07.10.1980 and then R.1/D.1 purchased house site to an extent of 545.0 square yards under registered sale deed dated 09.06.1994 from one A.Abraham, who purchased the plot shown as plot No.1 in the rough plan from one C.Kesava Rao under registered sale deed dated 22.04.1981. It is also the contention of the petitioner/plaintiff that plot purchased by R.1/D.1 is in a width of 90 feet on eastern side and road situated in the eastern side of the plot is in a width of 40 feet, which also mentioned in the sale deeds of the plot owners and on the southern side of the plot purchased by R.1 southern boundaries was described as a road and width of the road was not mentioned in the sale deed of R.1. He also stated that at the time of when the plots were divided by the original owners, the width of the road on the southern side was only 27 feet and land owners left land in a width of 3 feet on the southern side of the 1st defendant’s plot (R.1/D.1) plot to make the road as 30 feet and then the land owners took measurements from the line of the then existing road on the southern side and divided the plots. He further stated that R.2/D.2 purchased plot to an extent of 272 square yards marked as plot No.2 in the plaint plan with the specific boundaries and the third defendant purchased to an extent of 275 square yards under registered sale deed dated 29.02.1992, which is plot No.5. He pleaded that on 01.06.2007 when he visited the site, he noticed that R.1, R.2 colluded and illegally, and highhandedly encroached into his site in a width of 14.5” on the southern side and constructed a boundary wall at the points “EF” and R.1/D.1 removed the boundary beam originally existing between his site and the site of R.2 and shifted to further north to cover up his deficit, which was lost during the road formation as per approved lay out. He alleged that R.1, R.2 removed original existing concrete foundation and pillars and encroached into his site in his absence and encroached portion is marked as “ADEF” in the rough sketch in an extent of 88.61 square yards and alleged that R.1, R.2 trespassed into his site and occupied forcibly and highhandedly and R.4, R.5 are also necessary parties to the suit since they purchased the plots in the same block from common owners. The main contention of the petitioner is that the trial Court appointed an Advocate/Commissioner to note down physical features of property and measured all the plots belongs to himself and the defendants with the assistance of surveyor of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, who visited the disputed site and filed report, which clearly shows that his plot was encroached by the respondents