ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 22.08.2022 in I.A.No.324/2022 in O.S.No.475/2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram.

2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant. The petitioners filed suit vide O.S.No.475/2019 for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.324/2022 under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for seeking permission of this court to amend the plaint for incorporating certain paragraphs in the plaint, which were more described in the petition. Opposing the said application, the respondent filed counter contending that, the proposed amendment mentioned in the petition was happened prior to filing of suit and the plaintiffs have much knowledge about the lease deed and gift deed and the question of dispossession of plaintiffs does not arise, as they are not in possession of the plaint schedule property and only to fill up the lacunae and latches, the proposed amendment were sought and by virtue of the amendment, it would take away admissions in the plaint and accordingly prayed to dismiss the frivolous and vexatious application. After hearing both the sides, the Court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved, thereby the present revision has been filed.

3. Heard Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri PSP Suresh Kumar learned counsel for respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds contended that, the Court below has failed to see the purport of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 in right perspective and also the difference between amendment of plaint and amendment of written statement and applied the law applicable to the written statement to the present case on hand and further submitted that the Court below did not give proper reasons while dismissing the said application. As such, prayed to allow the revision.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that, if the said amendment is allowed, it changes the cause of action of the suit and it would take away the admission made and the Court below has rightly dismissed the application by giving proper reasons and there are no valid grounds raised or urged warranting the interference of this court. As such prayed to dismiss the revision.

6. Perused the record.

7. The petitioner filed suit vide O.S.No.475/2019 for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the present interlocutory application vide I.A.No.324/2022 has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, for amendment of plaint by adding certain paragraphs in the plaint and also consequential amendment of prayer from permanent injunction to recovery of possession on the ground that, pending consideration of the suit, the defendant in collusion with Sri Ashok Kumar dispossessed the petitioner and forcibly taken possession under threat of implication of false and frivolous cases on the plaintiffs. A perusal of the paragraph which are now sought to be incorporated in the plaint and the amendment of the prayer does not change the nature of the suit or cause of action.

A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that at the stage of trial, the present application has been filed. The Court below while dismissing the application has observed that the plaintiff took new pleas contra to the plaint and it changes the cause of action. The said observation is erroneous. In fact, the said paragraph does not change the nature of the original suit and cause of action.

8. The Honourable Apex Court in LIC of India Vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited has summed up the final conclusion with regard to Order 6 Rule 17 which reads as follows:

70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions f