The Court may allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings for just decision of the case and to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.

ORDER :

This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in I.A. No.487 of 2016 in O.S. No.75 of 2009, dated 01.11.2016.

2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Perused the material available on record and also contents of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The application filed by the revisions petitioners before the trial Court under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking for the amendment of the plaint was dismissed and aggrieved by the said order of dismissal the revision petitioners are before this Court.

5. The case of the revision petitioners is that they filed the suit for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and the said property was kept fallow. As the petitioner were residing in different villages, taking advantage of the same, the respondent illegally raised a compound wall around the said property and occupied the same and it was noticed only on 03.06.2016 and in view of the said dispossession, necessity arose for amendment of the relief sought for. Therefore, they requested for amendment of the plaint to entitle them to recover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by demolishing the constructions carried out.

6. The respondent resisted the said application mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it has claimed possession of the suit schedule property and asserted the same in the written statement itself. Secondly, that the application seeking for amendment is filed at the fag end of the trial and therefore it is unsustainable.

7. The trial Court by its wisdom came to a conclusion that there are no reasons to entertain the application that too at a belated stage and thereby dismissed the application.

8. Projecting his version, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as on the date of filing of the suit, the petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule property and the petitioners were not residing at the vicinity of the suit schedule property and taking advantage of the same, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent raised a compound wall and also made minor constructions in the suit schedule property and when one of the petitioners visited the said property in the month of June, 2016 i.e. on 03.06.2016 he found them illegal structures and immediately he took steps for getting the relief amended suitably and filed an application to that effect but the trial Court dismissed the said application only on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage and in fact, as the constructions were raised during the pendency of the suit, there is no question of seeking the amendment at any earlier stage but without observing this fact the application was dismissed and therefore, the petitioners approached this Court for justice.

9. Seriously assailing the said submission, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the consistent version of the respondent from the initial stage of the suit is that it is in possession of the suit schedule property and the same was stated in the written statement also but the petitioner having kept quiet for years together, when the matter came to the fag end of the trial and when the judgment was about to be pronounced, filed this application and indeed the petitioners, who filed the suit, have dragged on the proceedings from 2011 to 2016 and thereupon have come up with the application for amendment of prayer and observing their attitude, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and the reasons assigned by the trial Court while dismissing the application are valid and are in accordance with the settled legal position and therefore, this revision petition is not maintainable.

10. A meticulous perusal of the order of the trial Court discloses that it has pen down each and every detail of the case and discussed