Judgment :- The defendant is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction, stating that the suit schedule property is a vacant site and he is the owner of the suit property and as the revision petitioner/defendant attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also questioned the title, he filed the suit for the reliefs, as stated above. The respondent/plaintiff also filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C., within three months from the date of filing of the suit to add the relief of recovery of possession, stating that, after the filing of the suit, the revision petitioner trespassed into the suit property and put up a house construction, despite objections raised by the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the prayer for the relief of injunction has to be deleted and the prayer for recovery of possession has to be included. That application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that even on the date of filing of the suit, the revision petitioner had completed construction in the suit property and the respondent was also aware of the same and to prove the said fact, the revision petitioner also filed nine documents, which are marked as Exs.R-1 to R-9, before the Court below, which would prove that there was a house construction, prior to the filing of the suit and the revision petitioner also got electricity connection and was assessed to property tax in respect of that house. Therefore, on the date of filing of the suit itself, the respondent had cause of action to seek the relief of recovery of possession, and he deliberately omitted to file the suit for recovery of possession and prayed for injunction. Hence, subsequently, the respondent cannot amend the prayer by including the relief of recovery of possession, which was available to him, when the plaint was filed. Hence, the Court below ought not to have allowed the application. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment reported in AIR (1950) Mad 32 in the matter of [Bhagavatula Gopalakrishnamurthi and others Vs. Dhulipalla Sreedhara Rao and another] in support of his contention. 4. Hence, the Court below ought not to have allowed the application. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment reported in AIR (1950) Mad 32 in the matter of [Bhagavatula Gopalakrishnamurthi and others Vs. Dhulipalla Sreedhara Rao and another] in support of his contention. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that under Order II, Rule 2 CPC, when the plaintiff has asked for various reliefs and omitted to ask for such reliefs in the suit filed by him, he cannot afterwards sue in respect of the relief, which was omitted by him or relinquished by him, except, with the leave of the court. Therefore, the only option open to the respondent is to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit to include the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The Court below, without considering these aspects, allowed the application. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Admittedly, the suit was filed for declaration and for injunction. It is alleged by the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint that on 01.03.2010, the revision petitioner attempted to interfere with his possession of the property, by digging a pit and that was prevented and therefore, he filed the suit for declaration. The suit was filed on 06.04.2010, and the application to amend the plaint was filed on 27.07.2010. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for amendment, it is stated by the respondent/plaintiff that on 01.03.2010, the revision petitioner/defendant attempted to dig a pit and after the filing of the suit, despite objections raised by the respondent, the revision petitioner trespassed into the suit property in the month of May and put up a house construction. On that basis, the respondent sought for the deletion of the prayer of injunction and for inclusion of the prayer of recovery of possession. Though the revision petitioner filed nine documents to prove that he has put up a construction, even prior to the filing of the suit, and though some of the documents are earlier to the filing of the suit, at this stage, it cannot be decided whether those documents relate to the suit property. 6. Further, even according to the revision petitioner, construction was completed in the year, 2009 and assessment was made in January, 2010. 6. Further, even according to the revision petitioner, construction was completed in the year, 2009 and assessment was made in January, 2010. Therefore, the suit for recovery of possession will also lie against the revision petitioner, as the same is not barred by limitation, even assuming that the revision petitioner has put up a construction, prior to the filing of the suit, as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the respondent ought to have prayed for the relief of recovery of possession, when he filed the suit. As per Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C., the suit shall include whole of the claim, which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action, and if the plaintiff omits to sue in respect of any portion of his property, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. Order II Rule 2 (3) C.P.C., is an exception of Order II Rule 2(2) and as per Order II Rule 2 (3), if a person omits to include all reliefs, which he is entitled to in respect of the same cause of action, he is entitled to include that relief with the leave of the Court. Therefore, there is no absolute bar under C.P.C., which prohibits a person from claiming such relief, which he was entitled to, at the time of filing of the suit, but, omitted to include the same. Order II Rule 2 (3) enables the party to get the leave of the Court to include those reliefs, which are omitted by him at the time of filing of the suit and after getting leave of the court, the same can be included. In other words, in respect of relief, which are available to the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit, and which are not prayed for, can be prayed for later, after getting leave of the court. 7. Therefore, under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 (3), leave has to be obtained by the respondent/plaintiff to include the reliefs, which were omitted to be asked at the time of filing of the suit and in my opinion, the filing of application under Order VI, Rule 17 amounts to obtaining leave from the Court to include the relief, which was omitted. Further, as stated supra, the relief for recovery of possession is not barred by limitation and the respondent/plaintiff can very well withdraw the suit and file a fresh suit, after getting leave of the Court to include the relief of recovery of possession. But, the object of Order VI Rule 17 is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and by the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff, another round of litigation between the parties is also avoided. Considering all these aspects, the Court below has rightly allowed the application and I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. 8. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, viz., the decision rendered in Bhagavatula Gopalakrishnamurthi's case (referred supra) this Court refused to allow the amendment on the ground that by allowing the amendment, new case has been made, which was available to the party, when the suit was filed. In the case on hand, the suit is for declaration and prayer for injunction or recovery of possession is a consequential relief based upon the main relief of declaration and therefore, by deleting the prayer of injunction, and substituting the same by the relief of recovery of possession, no new case has been made out by the respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. The revision petitioner is entitled to file additional written statement and he is directed to file the same, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.