ORDER :

Kunuru Lakshman, J.

1. Challenging the order dated 22.07.2022 passed in I.A. No. 555 of 2017 in O.S. No. 37 of 2009 by the learned Principle Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present Revision.

2. Heard Sri K. Chaitanya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondents. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid suit O.S. No. 37 of 2009 initially for perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, they have filed an application vide I.A. No. 555 of 2017 under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') and Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the pleadings and to implead respondent Nos. 3 to 21 therein as defendant Nos. 3 to 21 to the suit on the following grounds:-

i) Originally the land admeasuring Ac. 2.08 guntas in Sy. No. 7 (bounded by East: Sy. No. 8, West: Sy. No. 6, North: Railway line, South: remaining land in Sy. No. 7) situated within the limits of Yenugonda village belongs to A. Ramesh

ii) He sold the said land to four persons it eluding 1st petitioner and husband of 2nd petitioner under a registered sale deed bearing Doc. No. 217 of 1986, dated 24.01.1986.

iii) Out of the said extent of Ac. 2.08 guntas of land, two purchasers namely Ramakrishna Reddy and Suryanarayana sold their respective Extents i.e. Ac. 0.22 guntas each.

iv) Revenue officials have also issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs.

v) The petitioners/plaintiffs have executed a registered agreement of sale - cum - General Power of Attorney with possession in respect of the suit land in favour of G. Shankaraiah and D. Bheemaiah vide registered agreements of sale - cum - General Power of Attorney documents bearing Nos. 4296 of 2007 and 6442 of 2007 respectively and possession was delivered to them.

vi) Rectification deeds bearing document Nos. 982 and 983 of 2009 were also executed.

vii) The petitioners/plaintiffs got fixed stone pillars along with the suit schedule lands.

viii) When defendants tried to interfere with their possession, they have filed the aforesaid suit seeking perpetual injunction.

ix) In the written statement, the defendants have not disputed the ownership of the petitioners/plaintiff's in respect of the suit schedule property, but they are disputing location of the land in Sy. No. 7.

x) The defendants have also field I.A. No. 555 of 2013 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit land to identify the nature of land and the same was allowed.

xi) The Advocate Commissioner has visited the land in Sy. No. 7 admeasuring Ac. 4.08 guntas of Yenukonda Village shivar (bounded by East: Land in Sy. No. 8, West: land in Sy. No. 6, North: Railway line and South: Land in Sy. No. 8) on 06.01.2015 and found several basements, open place and the and is not under cultivation.

xii) He has also filed sketch map along with his report.

xiii) According to the plaintiffs, they have purchased the land admeasuring Ac. 1.04 guntas and the same is not converted into non-agriculture.

xiv) During pendency of the suit just before visit of Advocate Commissioner, in December. 2014, some of the persons occupied the suit land alleging that they have purchased the plot from defendants, illegally without any right over it occupied and raised basements in the suit land.

xv) In view of the same, it is necessary to amend the pleadings of the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession of the suit land and mandatory injunction to dismantle the basements by adding the respondent Nos. 3 to 21 as defendant Nos. 3 to 21 in the suit.

4. The said application was opposed by the defendants on the following grounds:-

i) After 8 years, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid application and thus they are seeking amendment after 8 years.

ii) They were never in possession of the property.

iii) If the amendment is allowe