ORDER :

Defendant in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order, dated 11.11.2021 in I.A.No.358 of 2021 in O.S.No.145 of 2010 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda.

2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.145 of 2010 against the defendant seeking perpetual injunction.

3. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that originally suit schedule property belonged to one Akula Sreenivasulu being purchased by his father, Chagi Akula Veeranna, under registered sale deed, dated 30.07.1982; that Chagi Akula Veeranna in turn sold the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.21,100/- and he received Rs.1,100/- towards part consideration; that Chagi Akula Veeranna executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff; that on 31.10.1993 and 01.11.1993, said Chagi Akula Veeranna received entire amount and endorsed on the back-leaf of the said sale agreement; that after purchase of open site, plaintiff erected a bunk in part of the property and obtained electricity connection; that plaintiff obtained permission from Gram Panchayath vide proceedings, dated 04.02.2009 to construct a shed in the open site; that Gram Panchayat assigned door No.20/140/1-5; that while so Chagi Akula Veeranna and his son died; that later wife of Chagi Akula Veeranna registered the property in the name of plaintiff after receiving Rs.1,50,000/-; that MRO Pattikonda also issued possession certificate in respect of suit schedule property; that on 29.09.2010, defendant, who has no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property, trespassed into the suit schedule property in the absence of plaintiff and his family members and destructed the shed forcibly; that plaintiff rushed to the suit schedule property and obstructed the defendant from removing the bunk; that defendant openly proclaimed that he will come again and disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Thus, suit was filed for permanent injunction.

4. Defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that the defendant purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 19.04.2010 from A. Sanjamma; that the Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Pattikonda accorded permission on 25.06.2010 for construction of the house; that Panchayath Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Pattikonda also issued receipt for construction of house fee for Rs.790/- on 14.10.2010; that plaintiff who is having no right is trying to grab the defendant’s property and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Trial in the suit commenced. Plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination on 13.09.2017. Exs.A1 to A88 were marked. Plaintiff was cross-examined on 27.04.2018 and 23.08.2018. On 23.08.2018 further cross-examination was deferred.

6. At that point of time, plaintiff filed present application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the suit schedule property.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that pending the suit, he constructed three sheds in place of destructed shed. He filed photographs and CD as well as receipt to show construction of three sheds in place of destructed shed. CD and photographs were marked as Exs.A85 to A88. Thus, application is filed seeking amendment to include existing sheds in the place of shed destructed by the defendant.

8. Defendant filed counter and opposed application. In the counter it was contended that plaintiff without having any right or title or possession over the suit schedule property, obtained temporary injunction. The present application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

9. Trial Court by order, dated 11.11.2021, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

10. Heard both sides.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, plaintiff d