Judgment : The respondents 1 to 3 filed O.S.No.186 of 2003 against the petitioners and respondents 4 to 6 (defendants 2 to 4), in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of perpetual injunction, and to declare that the G.P.A., said to have been executed in favour of the 1st petitioner and one, Mr.Chandrasekar Reddy, as illegal, and consequently to set aside the sale deeds bearing document Nos.1542 and 1548, dated 17-04-2003. The trial of the suit commenced. Respondents 1 to 3 filed I.A.No.4115 of 2007, under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., with a prayer to permit them to amend the plaint, by including certain sale deeds, in the prayer portion of the plaint, and I.A.No.4116 of 2007, under Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C., with a prayer to receive the documents. It was alleged that the respondents 1 to 3 were not aware of all the transactions, carried out on the basis of G.P.A., and the filing of the applications became necessary after the various sale transactions. The petitioners opposed the applications on several grounds. It was alleged that the scope of the suit does not permit such amendment, and that the prayer becomes untenable, in view of the amendment caused to the relevant provisions of C.P.C. The trial Court allowed the applications, through a common order, dated 07-08-2008. This revision is filed against the order in I.A.No.4115 of 2007. Sri M.V. Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the trial Court did not take into account, the implications of the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., and proceeded to permit the amendment to the plaint, as though it is a matter of course. He contends that the trial Court was not clear about the scope of the suit, much less did it take into account, the important aspect, such as limitation, Court fee, vis-à-vis the proposed amendment. Sri T. Viswanadha Sastry, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, submits that the suit, pending before the trial Court, was comprehensive in nature, and the purpose of the amendment was only to bring certain other transactions within its fold. He contends that neither the scope of the suit is changed, nor any fresh cause of action is included in the suit. He contends that neither the scope of the suit is changed, nor any fresh cause of action is included in the suit. In the suit filed by the respondents 1 to 3, the plaint was basically prepared for the relief of perpetual injunction. Subsequently, the relief of declaration, that the G.P.A., in favour of the 1st petitioner is forged and not binding; was added, may be before the suit was filed. The consequential relief in relation to this facet was restricted to sale deeds bearing Nos.1542 and 1548, dated 17-04-2003. Through the proposed amendment, as many as seven sale deeds are sought to be brought under challenge. No amendment is sought, as regards the schedule of the suit. In the plaint, before the amendment, the value of the property was mentioned as, Rs.1,09,00,000/-. Court fee of Rs.200/-was paid. The petitioners filed a counter in I.A.No.4115 of 2007, highlighting the aspect of Court fee. It was alleged that though the 1st respondent claimed to be a Trust, the suit schedule property, covered by two sale deeds, does not belong to it, and there was serious defect, as to Court fee. The property, covered by the seven sale deeds, which were sought to be brought within the purview of the plaint, is of a far higher value. The trial Court did not take these things into account, at all. As a matter of fact, it proceeded on the assumption that the suit is filed for the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. This is contrary to record. The only basis pleaded for presenting the application was that the sale deeds were not mentioned in the plaint, by mistake. Act 22 of 2002, through which extensive amendments were caused to C.P.C., makes amendment, a bit, tough . The stage of the application becomes material. Though there is no absolute prohibition, a strong case has to be made out for amendment of pleadings, particularly, when the application is filed after the commencement of the trial. The trial Court proceeded on the assumption that the amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any time, to avoid multiplicity of suits. This absolute statement becomes untenable, in view of the amendment to the C.P.C. The important aspect raised by the petitioners as to the Court fee, cause of action, and other formalities were not at all discussed by the trial Court. This absolute statement becomes untenable, in view of the amendment to the C.P.C. The important aspect raised by the petitioners as to the Court fee, cause of action, and other formalities were not at all discussed by the trial Court. Hence, the C.R.P is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court is directed to pass fresh orders in I.A.No.4115 of 2007, duly taking into account the purport of amendment caused to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., and the various objections raised by the petitioners herein. There shall be no order as to costs.