ORDER :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 9.3.2018 in IA No. 1486 of 2015 in OS No. 2033 of 2011 of the VIE Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. Petitioner is plaintiff in the suit.

3. She filed the suit against respondents for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

4. In the plaint, she claimed that she purchased Acs. 7.00 gts., in Sy. No. 215 ('Aa') of Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal under a registered sale deed dated 24.9.1966 and when portions of this land were sought to be grabbed by third parties, she instituted LGC No. 45 of 2004 before the Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad against third parties; and in the said L.G.C., the said Court had appointed a Commissioner/Inspector Survey, Office of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District to find out in which survey number the LGC scheduled land falls; and the Commissioner then filed a report stating that the plaint schedule property would form part of the petitioner's property only, and that the property of respondents is in Sy. No. 213 of the said village and not in Sy. No. 215('Aa').

5. Petitioner also alleged that on 28.10.2011, there was a threat of eviction by respondents and therefore she filed the suit for injunction.

6. Written statement was filed opposing the suit claim.

7. Thereafter petitioner filed IA No. 1486 of 2015 seeking amendment of the prayer in the plaint by adding certain paragraphs in the plaint and also seeking declaration of petitioner's title and recovery of possession. This I.A. was filed on 7.10.2015.

8. In the said I.A., she contended that respondents had taken a stand in the written statement that they purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 27.7.1989 and thus disputed her title and she is compelled to sue also for declaration of title. She also stated that respondents pleaded that since petitioner filed LGC No. 45 of 2004 against the predecessor of respondents, she is not in possession of the property and so she is also compelled to seek recovery of possession.

9. Counter-affidavit was filed by respondents opposing the said application and contending that petitioner is trying to change not only the entire nature of the suit, but is also trying to add new and additional pleadings which changes the very injunction suit self and this is impermissible in law. It is alleged that the husband of 1st respondent purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 27.7.1989, that he expired on 2.2.1999 itself and the 1st respondent had affixed a sign board in the plot in the suit schedule property in 2000 itself and these facts were suppressed as also the fact that LGC No. 45 of 2004 was dismissed against the husband of 1st respondent on the ground that he had expired even before filing of the LGC. It was also stated that LGC was finally disposed of on 25.2.2011 and thereafter the present suit has been filed on 3.11.2011 for injunction simplicitor. It was also stated that IA No. 1814 of 2011 filed by petitioner for temporary injunction pending suit had been dismissed on 23.10.2013 and the said order had become final and in that order, the Court below had held that petitioner was not in possession of the suit scheduled property either on the date of filing of LGC No. 45 of 2004 or suit OS No. 2033 of 2011.

10. By order dated 9.3.2018, the Court below dismissed the application for amendment. It stated that the suit was filed in the year 2011 and the trial in the main suit was to start on 30.12.2014, but no reason was given by the petitioner for not filing the application for amendment before the matter was posted for trial. It held that petitioner had prolonged the matter successfully for 4 years and now when the Court is pressing upon pre-2012 matt