ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 22.02.2021 in IA No.13 of 2020 in OS No.18 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad.

2. This application in IA No.13 of 2020 was filed by the plaintiffs under Order-VI Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for amendment of plaint by inserting new para 5 (c) beneath para 5 (b) and above para-6 of the plaint and to amend the relief portions.

3. Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the material available on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.

4. The plaintiffs have filed the original suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property. Initially, the suit was filed against the first defendant. Thereafter, as per the orders in CRP No.91 of 2018 of this Court, defendants 2 to 8 were impleaded. The defendants 3, 4 and 7, despite service of summons, did not appear before the trial Court. They were set ex parte. The defendants 2, 5, 6 and 8 have adopted the written statement of first defendant.

5. The present application is filed under Order-VI, Rule-17 of CPC is filed by the plaintiffs for inserting para-5 (c) beneath para 5 (b) and above para-6 of the plaint by introducing new facts to the effect that during pendency of the suit, all the defendants inter se have created sale deeds and made illegal constructions over the suit schedule properties. Such persons have to be evicted from their unlawful possession and the sale deeds have to be cancelled as they are nominal and bogus. Accordingly, the relief of mandatory injunction is also claimed. This application is resisted by the contesting defendants.

6. The main averments of the counter affidavit filed by the first defendant adopted by the defendants 2, 5, 6 & 8 are that the plaintiffs have been filing one application after another to drag on the proceedings and to fill up lacunae, earlier IA No.769 of 2015 was filed. Most of the averments in the present application and in IA No.769 of 2015 are similar, but they did not mention in the earlier application for recovery of possession. In the evidence affidavit of PW.3 itself, it is mentioned about the construction of houses in the schedule of property, it was filed on 06.10.2016. These respondents are lawful possessors, having purchased the suit schedule property, through the registered sale deeds and the present application seeking amendment of the plaintiffs filed at a belated stage is not maintainable. The trial Court after careful appreciation of the facts dismissed the said application holding that the material on record clearly to show that the petitioners seeking the relief of amendment to drag on the proceedings and if the amendment proposed is allowed, it will cause prejudice to the respondents, as the defendants are trying to fill up lacunae. The evidence of PW.1 as well as the documents filed by the defendants relating to the years 2005 and 2010 show that structures were raised in the suit schedule property by that time itself and there are no merits in the application. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs vehemently contended that it is just and essential to bring the subsequent events on to record, in fact, after the cross-examination of PW.1 encumbrance certificate was obtained, it is only after 2016, the defendants started raising structures and pursuant to the orders of this Court allowing IA No.769 of 2015, defendants 2 to 8 were impleaded, they have filed their written statement, additional issues were framed, no prejudice would cause to the defendants, if this application is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to amend the pleadings in the plaint and relied on the principles laid in the case of Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, L