This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13.12.2021 in I.A.No.344 of 2021 in O.S.No.63 of 2009 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bhongir District.

2. Heard Sri B. Raveendra Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 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 No.1 is running a real estate business since more than 20 years by providing the house plots to his brother soldiers, who being the ex-army person, this plaintiff No.1 purchased the land bearing Sy.No.585 measuring Ac.12.20 gts dry land situated at Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District from Goli Raji Reddy, Goli Linga Reddy, Goli Gopal Reddy and defendant No.1 under the Registered Irrevocable General Power of Attorney vide Doc.No.104/IV/1988 dated 02.12.1998. Defendant No.1 without having any right or title in and over the suit schedule property and by using the forged and invalid ROR pass book and title deed has executed a registered sale deed fraudulently to an extent of Ac.03-20 gts in Sy.No.585 vide Doc.No.1237/2008 dated 13.03.2008 at SRO, Bibinagar in favor of defendant No.2 by entering into a conspiracy with the SRO, Bibinagar by fraudulent manner without passing any sale consideration between them. By virtue of the registered irrevocable GPA, the plaintiff company became absolute owner and possessor of the above mentioned land in Sy.No.585, which is clearly described in the schedule property.

5. It is further contended that in view of the execution of the said sale deed, the plaintiff has reported the matter before the SHO of Bibinagar, where a crime was registered against the defendants. The defendants are no way concerned or having right in and over the suit schedule property and they hatched a plan to grab away the suit schedule property. Thereby, they falsely created in collusion the alleged registered sale deed dated 13.03.2008 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 to cause loss and damage to the plaintiff company. As such, the present suit was filed for cancellation of the alleged registered sale deed dated 13.03.2008.

6. During the pendency of the present suit, the present application was filed i.e., I.A.No.344 of 2021 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, prayed to amend the plaint more particularly to amend the Court fee column and prayer column of the plaint and to amend the relief from cancellation of the registered sale deed document No.1237 of 2008 dated 13.03.2008 to declare the same as null and void.

7. The respondent filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and contending that the said relief which is sought is barred by limitation and that the issue of limitation will be arising as the relief sought was known to the petitioner at the stage of filing the present suit. In spite of having knowledge of the same, the plaintiff/petitioner cannot choose to seek the said relief and prayed to dismiss the application.

8. Now at the juncture, where the PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked and the matter has been posted for cross-examination, at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings.

9. Having heard both the counsel, the learned District and Sessions Judge dismissed the application with costs of Rs.500/- to the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Bhongir and held that the petitioner seeking amendment is not tenable and now, substituting the relief of amendment of plaint from cancellation of document to declaration of document as null and void is substantially changing the nature of the suit and the same cannot be permitted as the defendants have already acquired valid rights that the amendment sought is being at a belated stage.

10. Being aggrieved