( 1 ) HEARD Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri. ( 2 ) THE matter is coming up for admission to-day. The only contention raised by the counsel for revision petitioner is that by virtue of the order made by this Court in c. R. P. No. 2225 of 2005 dated 4-7-2005, the application for amendment of plaint could not have been allowed. The learned counsel pointed out to certain portions of the impugned order and would contend that virtually the learned Judge thought of allowing the application only in the light of the report and the sketch of Deputy Inspector of Survey and the said order was called in question by way of C. R. P. aforesaid and the same was set aside by this Court and hence, this would cause serious prejudice to the revision petitioner. Incidentally the learned counsel also had pointed out to several other factual details. ( 3 ) THE respondents herein, in I. A. No. 690 of 2005 in O,s. No. 796 of 2001 on the file of additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, filed the aforesaid application under Order VI rule 17 of the C. P. C. to permit them to amend the plaint. As can be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the application it was stated that the revision petitioner- respondent in the application-defendant in the suit high handedly removed the ridges between the respective lands and subsequent thereto two Mandal surveyors were appointed and they filed reports along with sketches. Certain other factual details also had been averred. It was also further stated that the revision petitioner-respondent encroached upon a portion of the plaintiff s land and transplanted the paddy and this was brought to the notice of the Court and the learned judge appointed the Deputy Inspector of survey and Land Records. It was also further stated that the revision petitioner-respondent in the said application engaged another advocate and work memos were filed. It was stated that there is some encroachment over the lands of the respondents-plaintiffs in the suit. The said application was resisted by filing a counter in detail. It was also further stated that the revision petitioner-respondent in the said application engaged another advocate and work memos were filed. It was stated that there is some encroachment over the lands of the respondents-plaintiffs in the suit. The said application was resisted by filing a counter in detail. ( 4 ) IN substance, the stand taken by the revision petitioner herein-respondent in the application was that in relation to the report and sketch filed by the Deputy Inspector of survey and Land Records which were filed in pursuance of the order in I. A. No. 1186 of 2004, C. R. P. No. 2225 of 2005 was filed and this Court by order dated 4-7-2005 had set aside the order in I. A. No. 1186 of 2005 and allowed the C. R. P. In substance the stand taken by the revision petitioner is that the very foundation for praying for the amendment of pleading had been set at naught by virtue of an order made by this Court in c. R. P. No. 2225 of 2005 and hence, allowing the amendment application by the learned judge cannot be sustained. The suit is of the year 2001. It is no doubt true that the order made in I. A. No. 1186 of 2004 was set aside by this Court in C. R. P. No. 2225 of 2005. As can be seen from the proposed amendment, respondents herein, the petitioners in the application-plaintiffs, pleaded encroachment and also prayed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. Originally the suit was instituted for the relief of perpetual injunction simpliciter. The learned Judge allowed the application on the ground that to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be just and proper to allow the same. ( 5 ) IN Adusumilli Venkateshwara Rao v. Chalasani Hymavathi the learned Judge of this Court held that where a suit for permanent injunction was filed an application for amendment of plaint seeking for conversion of suit into one for possession, such application can be allowed since such conversion does not amount to alteration of nature of the suit. The learned Judge placed reliance on K. Kameshwar Rao v. K. Rajyalaxmp. The learned Judge placed reliance on K. Kameshwar Rao v. K. Rajyalaxmp. ( 6 ) IN Bairam Susheela v. Pendota Rama rajaiah where a suit was filed for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and the same was dismissed and the appellate Court allowed application seeking permission to amend plaint to incorporate the relief of possession it was contended that on dismissal of suit valuable right accrued to defendant and amendment is impermissible at the appellate stage and that plea of recovery of possession is also barred by limitation since defendant perfected her title by adverse possession. It was held that once plaintiff claimed relief of declaration of title, which is principal relief, amendment of plaint to incorporate plea of recovery of possession cannot be said to have substantially filtered the nature of the suit. The learned counsel also observed that mere grant of permission to amend pleadings would not confer or take away the rights of the parties and hence the amendment order of the appellate Court is well justified. ( 7 ) IN K. Chinna Biddamma v. J. Krishnama naidu and others the then learned Chief justice of this Court held that amendment of plaint to be considered liberally to avoid multifarious Suits and where a suit for permanent injunction was filed and application was filed for amendment of plaint seeking declaration of title also the rejection of application is not legal and by allowing amendment defendants would not be even prejudiced as question of title can be incidentally gone into in a suit for injunction. Delay in filing such application can be compensated by awarding costs to the defendants. ( 8 ) IT is needless to say that the merits and demerits and the truth or otherwise of the stand taken in the proposed amendment need not be gone into at the stage of amendment of pleadings and the same may have to be decided at the appropriate stage. The main grievance ventilated by the counsel for the revision petitioner is that inasmuch as the order in pursuance of which the report and the sketch were filed by the Deputy inspector of Survey and Land Records itself having been set aside by this Court in c. RP. No. 2225 of 2005, the same cannot be made the foundation praying for amendment of pleading. No. 2225 of 2005, the same cannot be made the foundation praying for amendment of pleading. On a careful scrutiny of the averments made in the affidavit in support of the application it is true that the said fact also had been pleaded and accordingly, appropriate relief had been prayed for and in the over all facts and circumstances of the case the learned Judge to avoid the multiplicity of litigation had thought it just and proper to allow the proposed amendment. It is needless to say that the validity or otherwise and the impact of (he order passed in the C. R. P. aforesaid and the other relevant facts definitely can be urged at the appropriate stage during the trial by the revision petitioner. Except making this observation, no other relief can be granted in the present C. R. P. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.