ORDER 1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.7.2010 in IA No.182 of 2010 in OS No.898 of 2003 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit. He filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The respondents filed the written statements refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. Trial commenced and concluded. The matter is coming up for arguments. 3. At this stage, the petitioner filed IA No.182 of 2010 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC contending that during the pendency of the suit, taking advantage of the petitioner's absence at a time that he was sick and hospitalized and his family members were there in a hospital attending on him, the respondents made construction of a house in a part of the plaint schedule property forcibly and he be permitted to amend the plaint by seeking an additional relief of mandatory injunction apart from making other amendments in the body of the plaint. 4. Counter-affidavit was filed by 2nd respondent denying the allegations made by, the petitioner, contending that this application is filed only to drag on the matter and alleging that the story stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed accompanying this I.A., is false. It is also pleaded that the amendment sought is barred by limitation and that the petitioner should have also sought the relief of declaration of title. 5. By order dated 26.7.2010, the Court below dismissed this application on the ground that it was filed when the matter was coming up for arguments and that the affidavit filed in support of the application is vague, as the date of the alleged construction of the house by the respondents is not mentioned therein. 6. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8. None appears for other respondents even though notice was served. 1st respondent is stated to have died. 8. 6. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8. None appears for other respondents even though notice was served. 1st respondent is stated to have died. 8. The learned Counsel for petitioner contended that since the construction alleged by petitioner had occurred during the pendency of the suit and after the trial has commenced, the Court below ought to have permitted the amendment of the plaint and it erred in dismissing the I.A. filed seeking amendment of plaint. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and others v. K.K. Modi and others, 2006 (3) ALD 61 (SC) = AIR 2006 SC 1647 and Rajaram Narayan v. Rajaram, AIR 1996 MP 12 , wherein the decision of the Punjab High Court in K.L. Mangal v. Arun Mishra, AIR 1958 Pun. 460, was relied upon. 9. The learned Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, contended that there is no error in the order passed by the Court below and that the application for amendment filed by petitioner was rightly rejected by the Court below. He reiterated that the application was filed at a belated stage and was rightly rejected. He placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Angati Tatayya v. Vakada Sanyasirao, 2012 (6) ALD 714 . 10. I have noted the submissions of both sides. 11. Order VI Rule 17 CPC states: "17. Amendment of pleadings the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that is spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." As can be seen from the above provision, normally after trial has commenced, application for amendment would not be allowed unless the party seeking amendment satisfies the Court that in spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. 12. According to the petitioner, the cause of action for seeking amendment occurred during the evidence after the trial has commenced. Therefore, the proviso would not come in the way of the petitioner for seeking the amendment. 13. In Rajesh Kumar Agarwal's case (supra), the Supreme Court held: 16. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all Amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 17. Order VI Rule 17 consist of two parts whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 18. In our view, since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit." 14. Since the prayer sought in the amendment by the petitioner relates to the same property in respect of which earlier he had sought the relief of injunction, I am of the opinion that the amendment would be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Therefore, in view of the above decision, I am of the opinion that the trial Court had erred in rejecting the amendment on the ground that the application seeking amendment was made at the stage of arguments. 15. It may be that the petitioner has not mentioned the year in which construction was allegedly made by the respondents, but the petitioner has clearly stated that during the pendency of the suit and after the trial commenced, the constructions were made. The Court below therefore ought to have allowed the amendment. 16. In Rajesh Kumar Agarwal's case (supra), the Supreme Court also observed: "20. The Court below therefore ought to have allowed the amendment. 16. In Rajesh Kumar Agarwal's case (supra), the Supreme Court also observed: "20. While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. This cardinal principle has not been followed by the High Court in the instant case." 17. Therefore, whether the petitioner is right in his submission that the construction was made after the trial commenced or not, is a matter for enquiry to be gone into the suit and it is not proper to express any opinion on the said issue at this stage. 18. In Rajaram Narayan's case (supra), certain constructions were made during the pendency of the suit and an application for amendment of the plaint was sought seeking the relief of mandatory injunction in addition to the relief of prohibitory injunction sought originally. Following the judgment in K.L. Mangal's case (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the revision setting aside the order of trial Court refusing such amendment, on the ground that the events have occurred during the pendency of the litigation. 19. It is true that in Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) thr. LRs. v. M/s. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, AIR 2008 SC 2303 , cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the Supreme Court observed: "5. ........To put it clear, Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pretrial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. Pretrial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso." However, said observations cannot be made applicable to a situation where certain events had allegedly occurred after the trial has commenced. This is because in such an event, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not mentioning them in the plaint originally. 20. It is no doubt true that the suit is of the year 2003 and is at a stage of arguments. As a consequence of allowing the amendment of plaint, it has now got to be reopened and fresh pleadings have to be filed apart from evidence to be let in by the parties afresh. But since the very purpose of permitting amendment of pleading is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and since the events are alleged to have occurred during the pendency of the suit after the trial has commenced, keeping in view the fact that rejecting the application would lead to multiplicity of litigation forcing the petitioner to file a fresh suit, I am of the opinion that the amendment sought for by the petitioner is to be allowed. 21. In Angati Tatayya's case (supra), no doubt this Court did not permit the amendment seeking recovery of possession in a plaint filed originally for permanent injunction on the ground that it was sought after the evidence has commenced, but the facts in that case do not indicate whether trespass alleged in the amendment petition occurred after the trial commenced or not and the facts only indicate that the application for amendment was filed after the trial commenced. This Court held that cause of action would change. 22. This Court held that cause of action would change. 22. This Court had taken a view in Adusumilli Venkateswar Rao and another v. Chalasani Hymavathi, AIR 1990 AP 161 , that a suit for perpetual injunction can be amended into a suit for possession and that there will be no change in the cause of action if such amendment is permitted. Therefore, in this view of the matter, I am not inclined to follow the said judgment. 23. Considering that the purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation, the power to allow amendment has to be literally exercised subject to proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The mere fact that an amendment is permitted does not mean that the Court has accepted the plea of the petitioner that the pleadings sought to be included by way of amendment are true or that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought by way of amendment. The defendants would have an opportunity to file additional written statement raising all pleas open to them including the plea that the relief sought is barred by limitation or that such a relief cannot be granted in the absence of prayer for relief of declaration. 24. In this view of the matter, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. However, since the petitioner has admittedly filed the application seeking amendment at a belated stage, the petitioner shall be liable to pay costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the respondents Counsel in this Court. The costs have also been paid today in the Court. 25. Therefore, the order dated 26.7.2010 in IA No.182 of 2010 in as No.898 of 2003 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam is set aside, IA No.182 of 2010 is allowed and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 26. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. 27. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.