ORDER:

The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by an Order dated

21.05.2020 passed in I.A.No.405 of 2018 in A.S.No.87 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District.

2. Heard Mr.M.R.S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite service of personal notice as also notice through substituted service, none entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.

3. The petitioners herein are the appellants in the above referred appeal. Originally, they filed O.S.No.440 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur against one Kunkalaguntla Satyanarayana, seeking a decree for a) mandatory injunction directing him/defendant to remove the illegal construction upon the Western side in the Suit Schedule Property which is shown as EFGH in the plaint plan; b) permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and his henchmen, associates, confederates, agents and followers from in any way interfering with the Plaintiffs‟ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property which is shown as ABCD in the plaint plan; c) costs of the suit; and d) such other reliefs as are just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

4. The said Satyanarayana/defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. The learned Trial Court by Judgment and Decree dated 03.02.2015 dismissed the suit, inter alia, observing that the plaint schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the defendant and that he made constructions in it. Further that even though the plaintiffs/petitioners are having right and title over the plaint schedule property as per Ex.A.1, when the same is in the possession and enjoyment of the defendant, the plaintiffs/petitioners cannot seek mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the constructions without seeking possession of schedule property from the defendant and as such, the plaintiffs/petitioners are not entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for.

5. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the plaintiffs carried the matter by way of an appeal i.e. A.S.No.87 of 2015. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners filed I.A.No.405 of 2018 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) seeking permission to amend the plaint as follows:

Amendments to be made in the plaint a) at Para 3 of the plaint at BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE portion at page 4, sub-Para “h” to amend the plaint at line No.7 after the words “EFGH in the plaint plan” the words “and to deliver the plaint schedule property shown as ABCD in the plaint plan to the plaintiffs possession fro the defendant‟s possession by removing the constructions therein” to be inserted.

b) at Para IV of the plaint at CAUSE OF ACTION paragraph at page No.6 at line No.9 after the work “seeking” the words “delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant shown as ABCD in the plaint plan.” To be inserted before the word mandatory injunction.

c) at Para V of the plaint at PARTICULARS OF VALUATION after sub-Para “ii” to amend the plaint with sub-Para “iii” as “This being a suit for to deliver the possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant‟s possession to the plaintiffs‟ possession shown as ABCD in the plaint plan and the plaintiffs valued the relief at Rs.2,786/- on which a Court Fee of Rs.2,786/- is paid under Section 24(d) of APCF & S.V. Act, 1956 by depositing in Syndicate Bank, District Court Compound, Guntur”.

d) at Para VI of the plaint at prayer portion after sub-Para “as” to amend the plaint with sub-Para “a1” as “to deliver the property lying in between the points ABCD as shown in the plaint plan to the possession of the plaintiffs from the defendant”.

6. The 1st respondent/defendant filed his counter. However, no arguments were addressed though several opportunities were afforded. The learned appellate Court after considering the matter, by an Order dated 26.05.2020 dismissed the said appl