( 1 ) THE respondents filed O. S. No. 13 of 2000 in the Court of the I Additional District judge, Kadapa for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule properties against the petitioners. The petitioners filed the written statement and took various pleas. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that they have perfected their title in respect of the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession. At a later point of time, they filed I. A. No. 514 of 2002 under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. , with a prayer to permit them to claim the relief of declaration of their title in respect of the suit schedule properties on the strength of the alleged adverse possession; through counter-claim and sought to pay the Court fee on such relief. The respondents resisted the application. They pleaded that the petitioners filed O. S. No. 762 of 1980 in the Court of the iii Additional District Munsif, Kadapa against them for declaration of title and that it was dismissed. The decree of the trial Court became final with the dismissal of A. S. No. 84 of 1986 and S. A. No. 412 of 1988. The trial Court accepted their plea and dismissed i. A. No. 514 of 2002. Hence, this revision. ( 2 ) SRI S. V. Bhatt, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plea of adverse possession was already raised in the written statement and the present amendment is only to formalize it by framing an appropriate relief through counter-claim and by payment of Court fee. He submits that the truth or otherwise of the plea and the legality of the relief, needs to be considered at the trial of the suit and the observations of the trial Court virtually amount to prejudging the issue. ( 3 ) SRI V. R. Reddy Kowuri, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners subjected the respondents to prolonged litigation since 1980, and even after it was finally held that the petitioners could not have any title in respect of the suit schedule properties, the present relief is claimed indirectly. ( 4 ) ORDINARILY, the Courts grant permission foramendment of pleadings as well as prayer with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation. ( 4 ) ORDINARILY, the Courts grant permission foramendment of pleadings as well as prayer with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation. However, where that facility is sought to be misused, the Court is required to be more careful, lest the same results in proliferation of unending litigation. ( 5 ) IN the instant case, the petitioners have already taken the plea of adverse possession in the suit filed by the respondents for the relief of declaration of title and delivery of possession. In the normal circumstances, there could not have been any difficulty in accepting the request of the petitioners for payment of the Court fee and formalizing the plea of adverse possession through a counterclaim. However, it is a matter of record that the petitioners filed O. S. No. 762 of 1980 about two and half decades back seeking the relief of declaration in respect of the very same property, against the respondents. The suit ended in dismissal and the decree therein became final with the rejection of the first and the second appeals. The present relief, which is prayed for, through counter-claim, is for declaration of their title in respect of the suit schedule properties. When this very relief was rejected in a suit filed by them against the respondents, it is impermissible in law for them to claim that relief. The trial Court had examined the matter from proper perspective and rejected the application. Hence, this court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. ( 6 ) THE C. R. P. is accordingly dismissed. The suit is of the year 2000 and the litigation persisted several years prior there to. Hence, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible and not later than by the end of November 2005, uninfluenced by any observations made herein.