ORDER: 1. Heard Sri R.Chandra Sekhar Reddy and Sri D.Madhava Rao, Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner and the contesting respondents. 2. C.R.P.M.P.No.1760/2009 had been filed praying for the relief of vacating the orders made in the C.R.P. and though the matter is coming under the caption of Interlocutory, at the request of the Counsel on record, the C.R.P. itself was heard finally and the same is being disposed of. 3. Sri R.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the Revision Petitioner would maintain that the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad totally erred in allowing the application permitting the amendment of the plaint since by allowing the proposed amendment, the character of the suit will be changed and the cause of action also would be totally changed. The Counsel also would maintain that the proposed amendment is totally contrary to the original pleading and the reliefs prayed for. The Counsel would further maintain that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to take inconsistent stands or the purpose of the changed reliefs. The Counsel also would maintain that the very suit itself is not maintainable even for the relief of specific performance since it is in relation to a non-existing agreement and even otherwise now praying for possession being radically a different prayer altogether, such amendment would substantially alter the nature of the suit. The Counsel also incidentally pointed out to the Court fee and would maintain that even on that ground the order under challenge cannot be sustained. The Counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court in Rafeeq Ahmed Vs. Hameed Ahmed Khan and others 1. 4. On the contrary, Sri D.Madhava Rao, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents would maintain that it is no doubt true that a different relief is being prayed for, but the pleading is the same and the facts to be averred also being the same, in stead of driving the parties to institute yet another suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it would be just and proper to permit amendment and even otherwise in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judge, this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard the Counsel on record. 6. 5. Heard the Counsel on record. 6. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner/1st defendant being aggrieved of an order made in I.A.No.1601/2008 in O.S.No.714/2001 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The said application was filed by respondents 1 and 2/petitioners/plaintiffs praying for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deleting para-15 and adding the following paragraph: "Plaintiffs also claim for redelivery of possession of the property which the defendants have illegally dispossessed and are in occupation without any right or entitlement. They have no right to occupy the property as the cellar and first floor portions of the property was never sold to them nor any document is executed. Their occupation is illegal, unlawful and therefore, they respondents liable to be ejected and possession be delivered which is more clearly described in Schedule-A of the property and for illegal use and occupation of the property the defendants are directed to pay damages at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, the schedule of property to be amended as Schedule-A which is already in the plaint and Schedule B to be added as all that house in the second floor constructed in Plot No.76 in Survey No.160 situated at P&T Employees Co.op. Housing Society Limited, Karkhana, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad bounded on the North by: 30 ft. wide road South by: Plot No.84 East by : Plot No.77 West by : Plot No.75" 7. It was averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that respondents 1 and 2 herein/petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance and injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. While filing the suit it was the case of the plaintiffs that property in Plot No.76 in Sy.No.160, situate at P&T Employees Co.op. Housing Society, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad Cantonment with an area of 266 sq. yards consisting of cellar, ground, first and second floors was owned under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2153 of 1994, Book 1 Volume 1417 dated 10-10-1994. Subsequently after construction of the property the first and second floors of the property were sold to third parties. The second floor portion of the property has been sold to the defendants herein under two separate sale deeds which are now impugned in the present suit. Subsequently after construction of the property the first and second floors of the property were sold to third parties. The second floor portion of the property has been sold to the defendants herein under two separate sale deeds which are now impugned in the present suit. There is no dispute with regard to the property situated in the first floor. The relief is confined to the portion in second floor and portion of property in cellar and grounds floors. It is also not in dispute that the property existing in cellar and ground floor belongs to the petitioner who is the owner of the property. However, the suit as it was filed for specific performance and injunction in the year 2000 along with an application for interim injunction not to interfere and during this time when the Court was pleased to issue notice and during the pendency of the interim injunction the respondents have illegally grabbed the property and are now occupying the same. Since a comprehensive suit in the nature and title of specific performance is pending now the relief is required to be moulded to enable the petitioners/plaintiffs to take back possession by due process of law. Further, it is stated that it is not the case where the respondents are claiming any right, title to the property based on any document. They are just squatting on the property illegally without any entitlement. Even in the suit the relief that was prayed for is specific performance in respect of the second floor portion of the property which is based on the pleadings made by the respondents in the earlier civil suit which they had filed in O.S.No.551/201 where the plaintiffs as they are in that suit pleaded for refund of money and which suit was dismissed for default for non-prosecution. Taking the pleadings as an admission the petitioners/plaintiffs herein had agreed to refund the money and it is that case which is now being adjudicated and also incidental injunction with regard to the property owned and possessed by the petitioners/plaintiffs viz., the cellar and the ground floors, possession to be protected. Taking the pleadings as an admission the petitioners/plaintiffs herein had agreed to refund the money and it is that case which is now being adjudicated and also incidental injunction with regard to the property owned and possessed by the petitioners/plaintiffs viz., the cellar and the ground floors, possession to be protected. But apparently, the respondents being powerful, rich and influential, had illegally dispossessed the petitioners from the property and therefore there is a requirement to seek the relief of possession of the property in cellar and ground floors by duly evicting the defendants 1 and 2 from the said portions and the property which is more clearly mentioned in Schedule-A. It was also averred at the time of filing the plaint, specific performance was sought in respect of the property which is owned by the respondents/defendants consisting of entire portion in second floor which schedule had not been appended to the plaint by mistake and therefore plaint Schedule B property viz., all that house in the second floor constructed in Plot No.76 in Sy.No.160, situate at P&T Employees Co.op. Housing Society Limited, Karkhana, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad requires to be amended and hence in the present application relief that is being sought for is to amend the suit by deleting para-15 and add the following specified supra in its place or otherwise the petitioners shall stand to suffer grave and irreparable loss and injury. Hence the proposed amendment is prayed for. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by 1st respondent, several of the averments had been denied. It was specifically stated in para-4 of the counter affidavit that as far as specific performance is concerned, what is sought to be enforced is not clear. There has been no agreement which is to be enforced. The 2nd petitioner purchased an open plot of land bearing No.76, admeasuring 266 sq. yards from P&T Employees Coop. Housing Society Limited in the year 1987 which was in turn purchased by the 1st petitioner through a sale deed dated 10- 10-1994. Sanction was obtained or construction of a building from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and the construction was made. As the construction was not in accordance with the sanction, the Cantonment Authorities issued notice and threatened to take action departmentally. Thereupon both the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction in O.S.No.1172/1998 on the file of XVII Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad. As the construction was not in accordance with the sanction, the Cantonment Authorities issued notice and threatened to take action departmentally. Thereupon both the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction in O.S.No.1172/1998 on the file of XVII Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad. The said suit was dismissed on 10-12-2001. An appeal was preferred in A.S.No.34/2004 on the file of Family Judge, Secunderabad and the said appeal was also dismissed on 13-3-2007. Further it is stated that the petitioners herein constructed cellar, ground plus two upper floors. The 1st respondent evinced interest in purchasing the second floor portion. The construction was incomplete and only R.C.C. columns were raised and slab was laid. At that juncture, the 1st respondent purchased Western portion of the second floor through a sale deed dated 21-12-2000 bearing document No.2288 of 2000, along with a car parking area in the cellar. The father of the 1st respondent, The 2nd respondent, purchased the Eastern portion along with one car parking area in the Cellar through a sale deed dated 21-12-2000 registered as document No.2266 of 2000. In both the sale deeds, it was mentioned that the building had been constructed after obtaining sanction from Secunderabad Cantonment Board and that the property is an unencumbered property. Subsequently it turned out to be false and it was revealed that the property was mortgaged with Prudential Coop. Urban Bank Limited and that there is no sanction for construction of cellar and second floor. According to the Cantonment, the Plan submitted by the plaintiffs were rejected on 5-9-1991. On 30-5-1991, sanction for construction of a residential building was accorded vide CBR No.2(14-26) dated 30-5-1991. The earlier sanction was cancelled and plans were submitted for regularization of unauthorized construction on 18-9-1998. Ultimately the suit O.S.No.1172/1998 as well as Appeal No.34/2002 were dismissed. It is stated that having come to know that the construction is in violation of the sanction, the 1st respondent insisted that the petitioners should clear the mortgage loan and get the construction regularized. The petitioners agreed for the same and a Memorandum of Understanding was executed and possession of the ground floor was delivered to the 1st respondent in lieu of the second floor portion which was sold to the respondents. As far as the cellar is concerned, each flat was sold with a parking area in the cellar. The petitioners agreed for the same and a Memorandum of Understanding was executed and possession of the ground floor was delivered to the 1st respondent in lieu of the second floor portion which was sold to the respondents. As far as the cellar is concerned, each flat was sold with a parking area in the cellar. There are altogether five flats - one in ground floor, two in first floor and two in second floor. The two parking lots for the first floor flats are with the owner/occupiers of the first floor and the remaining cellar is in the custody of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is in lawful possession of the cellar (remaining area) and the ground floor, having been inducted into possession. In fact when the 1st respondent was served with a notice by the Prudential Coop.Urban Bank regarding mortgage, the 1st respondent filed a complaint in C.C.No.1191/2001 and also filed a suit for refund of the sale consideration in O.S.No.551/2001. The petitioners who are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit disputed the claim and did not agree to pay. The 1st respondent did not pursue either the complaint filed or the suit O.S.No.551/2001 in as far as his position and money are secured and that he is entitled to continue to occupy the ground floor and the remaining portion of the cellar till the second floor portions are sold to the respondents are made ready and the construction is regularized departmentally. It is further stated that the claim that there is no dispute regarding rights over the cellar and ground floor is not true. The cellar, as already stated, is not an independent unit as such. The cellar is meant for parking and all the flats have been sold with parking area for one four wheeler in the cellar. All the four sale deeds contain recitals to that effect. The petitioners had earlier putforth a false claim deliberately claiming that they are in actual physical possession of the ground floor and cellar floor and made frantic efforts to dispossess the 1st respondent from the building by obtaining an exparte order of injunction as though the petitioners are in possession and that the 1st respondent is trying to forcibly occupy the property. The 1st respondent had filed all the documents to prove his possession and enjoyment of the property through photographs, postal correspondence etc. The 1st respondent had filed all the documents to prove his possession and enjoyment of the property through photographs, postal correspondence etc. After realizing the situation, the petitioners got a Memo filed not pressing the injunction petition. Thereafter the Court was pleased to dismiss the injunction petition I.A.No.1968/2007. The very foundation for filing the suit is false. Further it is stated that in the earlier suit O.S.No.551/2001 the 1st period filed written statement contending that 1st respondent is in possession of the ground floor. The petitioners did not come out with truth of having put the 1st respondent in possession of the property and falsely claimed that the 1st respondent encroached over the property. The same amply prove that the petitioners are in the habit of telling lies only. There is no agreement which is being specifically enforced by the petitioners. Even on a reading of the entire plaint, one cannot gather what was the offer, what was the acceptance and when the petitioners came forward to comply with the second floor flats ready for occupation in all respects, clear the property of encumbrances and obtain regularization certificate for the second floor as well as cellar floor. These are prerequisite conditions and till fulfilling them, the petitioners have no right to seek redelivery of possession. Further more the cellar belongs to five individuals attached to five flats. Therefore, by no means legally the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed in the suit. The further claim that the respondents are squatting over the property illegally and without any entitlement is far from truth. As already stated above, the petitioners have no respect for the truth. At each point of time, a bundle of lies are putforth by the petitioners. The respondents are already registered owners of two portions in second floor, along with two parking lots in the cellar. Even as on date, it can be seen that only a skeletal structure (frame work) is available in the second floor which is unfit for human habitation. It is for the petitioners to make it fit for occupation with requisite sanctions such that the Cantonment Authorities may not come up with threats of demolition after it is either occupied or made ready for occupation. The petitioners did not make a whisper in the plaint of the obligations cast upon them. It is for the petitioners to make it fit for occupation with requisite sanctions such that the Cantonment Authorities may not come up with threats of demolition after it is either occupied or made ready for occupation. The petitioners did not make a whisper in the plaint of the obligations cast upon them. In the affidavit under reply, it is claimed that during pendency of injunction petition, the 1st respondent got into possession of the property. In the earlier suit O.S.No.551/2001, it is claimed that the 1st respondent illegally occupied the premises. In the Memorandum of Understanding, with a view to avoid the claim, it was mentioned that the 1st respondent made use of a blank Non-Judicial stamp. It is also stated that till now it is no where mentioned by the petitioners as to when the 1st respondent came into possession of the property. The 1st respondent does not know as to when and from whom the petitioners gathered that the 1st respondent is not claiming any right over the property. If the pleadings in O.S.No.551/2001 were to be accepted, the petitioners could have suffered a decree in the said suit. The very filing of the present suit is without any basis. The petitioners only aim was to somehow or other obtain an exparte injunction order and dispossess the 1st respondent from the property with the aid of such exparte order. When the Court came to the right conclusion, the petitioners are not able to wriggle out of the situation and are now finding ways and means to make up a case once again putting forth a false claim contending that the 1st respondent illegally dispossessed the petitioners which is an utter falsehood. When the basis for the suit is falsehood, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners. According to the petitioners the respondents are in illegal occupation of the property, but however, no details had been furnished in this regard. The property has to be valued as per the present market value and Court fee is to be paid accordingly. Certain further averments also had been made in paras 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit. 9. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 10. The property has to be valued as per the present market value and Court fee is to be paid accordingly. Certain further averments also had been made in paras 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit. 9. These are the respective stands taken by the parties. 10. This Court had gone through the averments made in the plaint and also the written statement of the 1st defendant since the said respective pleadings of the parties had been placed before this Court. It is no doubt true that originally the suit was filed for the relief of specific performance and consequential relief, but at present, by the proposed amendment, redelivery of possession of the property and other reliefs are being prayed for. It is pertinent to note that as far as the pleadings are concerned, no substantial changes are being introduced. However, in the light of the events which had been narrated, the proposed amendment had been prayed for. No doubt strong reliance was placed on the decision referred (1) supra wherein this Court held that the plaint cannot be permitted to be amended where the proposed relief and original relief are inconsistent with each other without any factual background in plaint resulting in alteration of nature of suit and cause of action. 11. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever relating to the said proposition which had been laid down by the learned Judge of this Court referred supra. However, on a careful reading of the order under challenge and also the respective pleadings of the parties, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that as far as the factual background is concerned, no substantial changes as such are sought to be introduced by either of the parties and no doubt in the light of the events which had been narrated, the present proposed amendment had been prayed for. In stead of driving the parties to yet another litigation or to institute yet another fresh suit, since there are no substantial changes which are to be brought in in the respective pleadings of the parties, to avoid multiciplity of proceedings, the learned Judge thought it fit to permit the proposed amendment after recording reasons in detail. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court after carefully scrutinizing the respective stands taken by the parties in the pleadings and also in the affidavit filed in support of the application and the counter affidavit filed and further in the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Judge while allowing the application, this Court is satisfied that the learned Judge exercised the discretion properly while allowing the application, especially keeping in view the findings on multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, this Court does not see any reason to disturb the said order especially while exercising the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the light of the same, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No costs.