Judgment : This revision is filed against the order dated 12.11.2009 in I.A. No.174 of 2009 in O.S. No.327 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalli. 2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit in O.S. No.327 of 2001. The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the respondent and his men from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No.174 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code for amendment of names of neighbours of southern and western boundaries of the suit schedule property, and for recovery of possession etc. 3. The case of the revision petitioner is that after filing the suit, it was found that in the plaint schedule, the surnames on south and west neighbours were wrongly mentioned due to mistake. The southern neighbours are Somulamma and Golagani Appalanaidu. The surname of Somulamma was mentioned by mistake as Koyya instead of Murukuti, and another existing owner on south was not mentioned. Somulamma is popularly known as Koyya Somulamma because she is tall like a Koyya and the western neighbour’s name was mentioned as Koyya Perayya and in fact he sold away his site to Vantakula Naidu and he constructed a house, and the surname of Perayya was mistakenly mentioned as Koyya instead of Doddi. Therefore, there is necessity to amend the plaint schedule. It is his further case that he constructed RCC slab house in the schedule property. Respondent taking advantage of dismissal of I.A. No.1875 of 2001, which was filed for temporary injunction, and appeal in C.M.A. No.57 of 2004, his influence as employee in Panchayat and with the help of revenue and police officials, trespassed into the suit schedule property and dispossessed the revision petitioner. To that effect, the revision petitioner gave complainants to Police but no action has been taken and therefore, he is advised to seek possession of the plaint schedule property. To that effect, the revision petitioner gave complainants to Police but no action has been taken and therefore, he is advised to seek possession of the plaint schedule property. Therefore, it is just and necessary to permit the revision petitioner to amend the plaint as follows: for southern boundary neighbours: Murukuti Somulamma and Golagani Appalanaidu and for western boundary neighbours: Vantakula Naidu and previously Doddi Perayya, and to add Para III (C) “subsequently after filing of the suit and recently the defendant taking advantage of his employment in Panchayat and his acquaintance and help of revenue and police officials and also due to dismissal of temporary injunction petition and the CMA, trespassed into the plaint schedule property and dispossessed the plaintiff and therefore the defendant is bound to deliver back the possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff” and to renumber Para III (c) as III (d) and to add “for possession of plaint schedule property” before other reliefs etc. 4. The respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the application and stated that he, with the permission of Government, occupied Government site in S.No.242/2 of Sabbavaram and constructed a thatched house therein in the year 1979 and the same was assessed to property tax by Gram Panchayat, Sabbavaram under Assessment No.839 and was enjoying the same. Later due to natural decay, heavy rains and floods, the thatched house of the respondent was collapsed and during the month of November,2000, he started construction of slab house at the site where the old thatched house existed and the same is completed and the slab house is bounded by: East: building of Mahila Mandali, South: Slab house of Murukuti Somulamma, West: House of Doddi Perayya and North: G.T. Road and later his slab house was also assessed to property tax vide Assessment No.1520 and thus, the respondent, who occupied the site in S.No.242/2 has been enjoying the same with absolute rights by constructing the thatched house earlier, and by constructing RCC slab house subsequently, and also by paying taxes. He stated that neither the revision petitioner nor his ancestors ever had any right, title possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and that the revision petitioner is not a resident of Mogalipuram village. He stated that neither the revision petitioner nor his ancestors ever had any right, title possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and that the revision petitioner is not a resident of Mogalipuram village. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No.1875 of 2001 for temporary injunction and the same was dismissed and as against which he preferred appeal in C.M.A. No.57 of 2004 and it was also dismissed. The revision petitioner filed the present I.A. to drag on the suit proceedings, and if the alleged amendment is allowed, the entire structure of suit and also cause of action will be changed and as such, the petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Taking into consideration the material available on record and the submissions made on either side, the trial Court dismissed the application holding that the same is filed to drag on the suit proceedings. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondent. 7. The case of the revision petitioner is that the respondent -defendant trespassed into the suit schedule property and dispossessed him by beating him and committing several offences and that he gave complaints to police but police did not take any action. As a matter of fact, the revision petitioner has not specifically stated in which month and on what date the respondent -defendant trespassed into the suit schedule property and dispossessed him, and there is no iota of proof to show that the revision petitioner made complaints to the police and the police did not act upon. It is pertinent to note that the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1875 of 2001 for temporary injunction and the same was dismissed and he preferred appeal in C.M.A. No.57 of 2004 and the appeal was also dismissed. Dismissal of the I.A. and the C.M.A indicates that the revision petitioner could not establish his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Further, it is seen that the C.M.A. was dismissed on 22.04.2006 and the present I.A. for amendment was filed on 21.10.2009 i.e. after more than three years. It is also pertinent to note that the suit is of the year 2001 and the chief examination affidavit of PW.1-revision petitioner is filed on 7.4.2009 and the suit is coming for his cross examination. It is also pertinent to note that the suit is of the year 2001 and the chief examination affidavit of PW.1-revision petitioner is filed on 7.4.2009 and the suit is coming for his cross examination. Thereafter, the revision petitioner took several adjournments, and when the matter was adjourned as last chance, the revision petitioner filed the present I.A. for amendment on 21.10.2009. In the circumstances, there are no merits in the C.R.P. and it cannot be said that the revision petitioner is diligent in prosecuting the suit, and as such, the trial Court has rightly observed that the revision petitioner filed the present I.A. to drag on the suit proceedings. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner in AdusumilliVenkateshwar Rao and another v. Chalasani Hymavathi ( AIR 1990 AP 161 ), Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B.Goyal ( AIR 2002 SC 665 ) and Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others (2008) 4 SCC 594 ) are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity warranting interference from this Court, and as such, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the .No order as to costs.