JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.13.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.549 of 2019 in O.S.No.581 of 2007 on the file of the XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad. 2. The petitioners herein are plaintiffs in the above suit. 3. They filed the said suit in the year 2007 for the following reliefs: "(a) To vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit plaint schedule premises to the plaintiff; (b) To pay the arrears of rent of Rs.52,500/- for the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.07.2007 at Rs.7,500/- p.m. with interest at 12 % per annum; (c) To pay damages / mesne profits of Rs.5,000/- for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit schedule property for the period from 01.08.2007 to 15.08.2007 at Rs.10,000/- p.m. with interest at 12% p.a.; (d) To pay future damages for unauthorized occupation and use of the suit schedule property from the date of suit till delivery of vacant possession to the plaintiffs at Rs.10,000/- p.m. with interest at 12% p.a.; (e) To pay costs of the suit; and (f) To comply with such other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant under the circumstances of the case." 4. Written Statement was filed by the 1st respondent opposing the suit claim and denying that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and petitioners, and contending that he had obtained lease of the 1st floor portion of the building from one Mohd. Omer Asif under a Rental Agreement dt.01.07.2007 in which there was no mention of the 1st petitioner. 5. Pending suit, the 1st respondent also filed a Memo in the Court stating that he had handed over the suit schedule premises to the 2nd respondent. 6. The petitioners then filed I.A.No.549 of 2019 on 02.12.2019 to amend the plaint in the Writ Petition. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, they contended that the figure of regulating the rent mentioned in the plaint at Rs.7,500/- per month is incorrect, that the actual rent is Rs.11,700/- per month from 01.01.2007 to 31.07.2007; consequently, the claim in the suit is for a lesser monthly rent. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, they contended that the figure of regulating the rent mentioned in the plaint at Rs.7,500/- per month is incorrect, that the actual rent is Rs.11,700/- per month from 01.01.2007 to 31.07.2007; consequently, the claim in the suit is for a lesser monthly rent. It was admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that the evidence of D.W.1 was already over and it was closed by the Court below on 29.11.2019 and the case was posted for hearing of arguments on 02.12.2019. Certain other amendments in the plaint in relation to the Court Fee were also mentioned, and it was contended that the suit must be reopened and the application for amendment of plaint should be allowed, and the petitioners must be allowed to again cross-examine D.W.1. 8. Counter-Affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent opposing this application, contending that he had already filed a Memo on 23.03.2010 informing the Court about handing over of vacant possession to the 2nd respondent; that he was depositing rent regularly at Rs.8,785/- from April, 2009 to 01.02.2010 as per the directions of the High Court and the instant petition was filed at the stage when the suit is ripe for arguments, and is not maintainable. 9. Reliance is placed on the Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which bars the Court from permitting applications for amendment of pleadings after the trial commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. It is contended that the application filed by petitioners did not assign any valid reason and no due diligence is displayed by the petitioners for seeking amendment of the plaint after the trial started. 10. By order dt.13.02.2020, the Court below dismissed Interlocutory Application No.549 of 2019. It is contended that the application filed by petitioners did not assign any valid reason and no due diligence is displayed by the petitioners for seeking amendment of the plaint after the trial started. 10. By order dt.13.02.2020, the Court below dismissed Interlocutory Application No.549 of 2019. It took note of the fact that a Memo was filed by the 1st respondent on 23.03.2010 about handing over of the vacant possession of the property to the 2nd respondent; that there is a dispute about the ownership of the property pending between the 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent in O.S.No.770 of 2009; that since the ownership dispute between 2nd respondent and 1st petitioner has not yet been settled, relief of recovery of possession cannot be sought from the respondents by way of an amendment. It also observed that there is no pleading in the plaint about the 2nd respondent being a tenant though he was impleaded in the suit; and that application for amendments cannot be allowed after trial commenced in the absence of due diligence by the parties seeking amendment. It also observed that the application for amendment changes the nature of the entire suit. 11. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 12. The counsel for petitioners contended that the Court below erred in dismissing the application for amendment; that grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if they are not allowed to amend the plaint; the correctness of the pleadings raised in the amendment application cannot be gone into while deciding the amendment application; and as far as relief of recovery of possession is concerned such a relief was sought for originally in the plaint itself in para no.8(a), and the Court below cannot say that such a relief is now maintainable merely because possession of the property was allegedly delivered by the 1st respondent to 2nd respondent, pending suit. 13. From the facts recorded above, it is clear that after filing of the suit it is alleged by the 1st respondent that he delivered peaceful possession of the property to the 2nd respondent on 23.03.2010. The relief of recovery of possession was initially sought by the 1st petitioner in the plaint, and is also reiterated in the amendment application. May be the issue of ownership of property between the petitioners and 2nd respondent is pending adjudication in O.S.No.770 of 2009. The relief of recovery of possession was initially sought by the 1st petitioner in the plaint, and is also reiterated in the amendment application. May be the issue of ownership of property between the petitioners and 2nd respondent is pending adjudication in O.S.No.770 of 2009. But, once the 2nd respondent is impleaded as a party in the instant suit O.S.No.581 of 2007 also, it cannot be said that petitioners cannot seek the relief of recovery of possession from the 2nd respondent as well. Therefore, the observations made by the Court below on this aspect cannot be countenanced and to that extent, its order is set aside. 14. But, as regards the prayer of the petitioners to substitute the rate of monthly rent as Rs.11,700/- instead of Rs.7,500/- per month is concerned, this request is being made 12 years after the suit is filed, and after the evidence of both sides was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. At this belated stage, such a prayer for amendment of the plaint cannot be allowed in the absence of due diligence exhibited by the petitioners to explain why such amendment could not be sought before the trial commenced. 15. Therefore, insofar as the Court below dismissed the application for amendment in the impugned order, its action is sustained, but its observations on the merits of the claims of the respective parties particularly as regards prayer of relief for delivery of possession is set aside because while deciding application for amendments, the correctness of the pleadings of the parties in the amendment applications cannot be gone into. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed as above. No order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.