An application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should be allowed when it is necessary for resolving the real controversy between parties and avoiding multiplicity of litigation, even if requested after the commencement of trial, provided it does not cause irreparable prejudice.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 20.11.2017 in I.A.No.120 of 2014 in O.S.No.15 of 2003 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, at Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

2. Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein filed a suit i.e., O.S.No.15 of 2003 for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, who is the absolute owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.434/14 admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas out of Ac.1-30 guntas situated in the shivar of Yellareddy Village and Mandal and along with suit, I.A.No.57 of 2003 was also filed for temporary ad-interim injunction against the defendants, claiming that defendant No.1/petitioner herein is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.1-30 guntas in Sy.No.434/14. But, out of this total extent, defendant No.1 filed a suit for an extent of only Ac.1-00 guntas, leaving apart 30 guntas, which was in possession as there was no denial of ownership and interference by the plaintiff/respondent in respect of the said 30 guntas.

5. The learned trial Court passed an order of status quo in I.A.No.57 of 2003 dated 14.10.2003 to maintain by the defendants. Despite the status quo order, it is submitted that the defendants criminally trespassed and illegally occupied the suit land to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas and filed I.A.No.133 of 2006, wherein an Advocate Commissioner i.e., an Assistant Surveyor, Survey Settlement Land Records, Nizamabad was appointed to demarcate the suit land and he had conducted a panchanama and submitted a report in the month of February 2012 along with the tonch map in which it was noticed that there was an encroachment of Ac.0-32 guntas in Sy.No.434/14 on behalf of defendant No.1 i.e., Thota Pochaiah, S/o. Parvaiah.

6. It is further contended that defendant No.1 occupied the land of Ac.1-00 guntas out of Ac.1-30 guntas by disobeying and violating the orders of the status quo. The said encroachment was occurred during the pendency of the suit, as such to avoid multiplicity of filing suit the plaintiff filed I.A.No.120 of 2014 seeking relief to amend the suit reliefs from perpetual injunction to the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession against the defendants.

7. The defendant No.1 filed a counter affidavit in I.A.No.120 of 2014 denying the averments made in the application and contended that the plaintiff is not specific about the total extent of the land and contents of the petition are different with each other and self-contradictory. It is also further contended that the plaintiff has not explained the delay of two years when the alleged encroachment and occupation was made by the respondents in the month of January 2012. It is submitted that if the petition is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit and substitute a new cause of action and the subject matter of the suit, is not permissible under law and the other ground raised is that the petition filed was only to drag the suit proceedings, that too at the stage of commencement of trial.

8. The learned trial Court has raised the following points for consideration:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as claimed for?

2. Whether the presen