ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders dated 11.02.2015 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, in I.A.No.364 of 2013 in O.S.No.184 of 2001 wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (in short “CPC”) seeking permission to amend the plaint.

2. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs before trial Court in brief is that they filed suit for permanent injunction against R1, R2/D1, D2 and during pendency of the suit 2nd petitioner/2nd plaintiff died. They submit that 1st plaintiff and D3, D4 are the legal heirs of their mother, but D3, D4 not cooperating with 1st plaintiff, due to that they have been added as defendants. It is alleged that R1, R2/D1, D2 tried to interfere with the possession of plaintiffs in plaint schedule property and also thatched hut, due to that, at first instance suit is filed seeking injunction simplicitor.

They submit that R1, R2 have contended that there is a passage from their house site to the vacant site situated to the extreme north of the house site of plaintiffs and D1. In the suit, trial has been commenced. R1/D1 filed petition for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of suit locality including the passage as alleged by them in their written statement, which was allowed. Then advocate commissioner visited suit locality on 15.12.2012 and filed report on 28.01.2013. They further alleged that R1/D1 occupied the site in his front yard i.e. on the extreme south of plaint schedule property to an extent of 30 feet width from west to east and 33 feet with length from South to North, which is equivalent to 110 sq. yards of site shown in the advocate commissioner’s plan highhandedly and illegally in the 2nd week of December 2012, which is also shown in commissioner’s plan as “EFGH”. They submit that the said “EFGH” site shown as plaint “B” schedule, which is part of plaint “A” schedule and as R1 during pendency of the suit in the 2nd week of December 2012 trespassed into the site, 1st plaintiff intended to seek relief of declaration and recovery of possession and proposed amendment, which reads as under:

“Proposed Amendment: Para No.7(A)

1st plaintiff submits that he prays to declare that the 1st plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are absolute owners of plaint “B” schedule property more shown with green colour as “E F G H” in the petition/plaint plan annexed with this petition shown in green colour with a width of 30 feet and length of 33 feet, totaling 110 yards more shown as plaint “B” schedule property, i.e., part of plaint “A” schedule property and to order costs and to order eviction of defendants 1 & 2 from the plaint schedule property with in a stipulated period or else by due process of law and to induct the 1st plaintiff & defendants in possession of said property and costs of the suit.

To add plaint “B” schedule property

To add Para No.9(A)

To declare that the 1st plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are the absolute owners of the plaint “B” scheduled property i.e., part of the plaint “A” schedule more shown in petition/plaint plan as E F G H in green colour with plaint plan which is an extent of 30 feet width and 33 feet length which comes to 110 sq. yards years and for eviction by due process of law. Plaintiffs value it as Rs.--- is herewith paid U/S 24(a) of APCF 7 SV Act, 1956.

To add 11(a)(a)

To Declare that the 1st plaintiff and defendants 3 & 4 are the absolute owners of plaint “B” schedule property more shown with green colour in petition/plaint plan annexed herewith shown as “EFGH” in plaint plan and evict the defendants 1 & 2 from the plaint B schedule property i.e., part of plaint “A” schedule i.e. EFGH site and to induct the