ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in I.A. No.487 of 2016 in O.S. No.75 of 2009, dated 01.11.2016. 2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Perused the material available on record and also contents of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The application filed by the revisions petitioners before the trial Court under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking for the amendment of the plaint was dismissed and aggrieved by the said order of dismissal the revision petitioners are before this Court. 5. The case of the revision petitioners is that they filed the suit for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and the said property was kept fallow. As the petitioner were residing in different villages, taking advantage of the same, the respondent illegally raised a compound wall around the said property and occupied the same and it was noticed only on 03.06.2016 and in view of the said dispossession, necessity arose for amendment of the relief sought for. Therefore, they requested for amendment of the plaint to entitle them to recover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property by demolishing the constructions carried out. 6. The respondent resisted the said application mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it has claimed possession of the suit schedule property and asserted the same in the written statement itself. Secondly, that the application seeking for amendment is filed at the fag end of the trial and therefore it is unsustainable. 7. The trial Court by its wisdom came to a conclusion that there are no reasons to entertain the application that too at a belated stage and thereby dismissed the application. 8. Secondly, that the application seeking for amendment is filed at the fag end of the trial and therefore it is unsustainable. 7. The trial Court by its wisdom came to a conclusion that there are no reasons to entertain the application that too at a belated stage and thereby dismissed the application. 8. Projecting his version, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as on the date of filing of the suit, the petitioners were in possession of the suit schedule property and the petitioners were not residing at the vicinity of the suit schedule property and taking advantage of the same, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent raised a compound wall and also made minor constructions in the suit schedule property and when one of the petitioners visited the said property in the month of June, 2016 i.e. on 03.06.2016 he found them illegal structures and immediately he took steps for getting the relief amended suitably and filed an application to that effect but the trial Court dismissed the said application only on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage and in fact, as the constructions were raised during the pendency of the suit, there is no question of seeking the amendment at any earlier stage but without observing this fact the application was dismissed and therefore, the petitioners approached this Court for justice. 9. Seriously assailing the said submission, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the consistent version of the respondent from the initial stage of the suit is that it is in possession of the suit schedule property and the same was stated in the written statement also but the petitioner having kept quiet for years together, when the matter came to the fag end of the trial and when the judgment was about to be pronounced, filed this application and indeed the petitioners, who filed the suit, have dragged on the proceedings from 2011 to 2016 and thereupon have come up with the application for amendment of prayer and observing their attitude, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and the reasons assigned by the trial Court while dismissing the application are valid and are in accordance with the settled legal position and therefore, this revision petition is not maintainable. 10. 10. A meticulous perusal of the order of the trial Court discloses that it has pen down each and every detail of the case and discussed the merits of the case at length. However, few points need a mention. 11. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the second petitioner at para 3 of the affidavit made a mention that on 03.06.2016 he visited the suit land and found the compound wall raised by the defendant and is in illegal occupation. But the trial Court at para 7 of its order made crucial observations, which reads as under : “No cogent explanation is offered by petitioners/plaintiffs for not filing the application either in the month of April or June, 2016 and filing the present application belatedly in the month of September, after closing the defendants evidence when the matter is come up for arguments. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioners/plaintiffs have come up with this application belatedly as submitted by the counsel for respondent/defendant.” 12. When the petitioners found the alleged illegal occupation in the month of June, 2016 (03.06.2016), the observation of the trial Court that the petitioners did not come with any cogent explanation for non filing of the application in the month of April, 2016 is highly objectionable. As per the material available on record, the application for amendment was moved on 08.09.2016. Thus, the delay in moving an application for amendment of the plaint is three months five days. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the said delay in moving the application for amendment of the plaint invoking Order VI Rule 17 CPC is inordinate as contended by the respondent. 13. For better appreciation of the legal position, the relevant provision i.e. Order VI Rule 17 CPC is extracted as under : “Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such term 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 in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 14. Thus, it is clear that for just decision of the case and for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings. Order VI Rule 17 was earlier deleted however it was again restored by amended Act 22 of 2002. It was inserted with a proviso that unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial, the said application should not be allowed. The said provision was inserted again to accommodate the parties to place before the Courts of law the full and complete details of the case so that just decision can be rendered. However, to curtail the delay, the proviso was added to the effect that no application for amendment shall be allowed by the Courts after the trial has commenced. However, an exception was given to the said rule and the said exception is that when the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial, then the petition seeking for amendment of pleadings can be entertained. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent projected that though such a pleading was taken by the respondent in the written statement itself that it is in possession of the suit schedule property, the relief was not altered by the petitioners and filing of an application seeking for alteration of relief at the fag end of the trial is unjustifiable. The version of the petitioners is that they were in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and subsequently i.e., during the pendency of the suit and more particularly when the trial was in progress, they were dispossessed and therefore, necessity arose for them for amendment of the plaint. As rightly observed by the trial Court, while dealing with an interlocutory application, no findings can be given with regard to the merits of the case i.e., to decide who is in occupation and possession of the property and who has got the right and title over it. As rightly observed by the trial Court, while dealing with an interlocutory application, no findings can be given with regard to the merits of the case i.e., to decide who is in occupation and possession of the property and who has got the right and title over it. Thus, having taken a plea that the respondent is in possession of the suit schedule property, this Court is of the view that even if the plaint is amended to the effect for recovery of possession, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent as such. Furthermore, all endeavor of the Courts of law is to render decision in an effectual way, which would give full and complete justice/relief to the parties to the proceedings. When the petitioners/plaintiffs have taken a plea that they were dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, the relief if any that would be granted in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs i.e., granting of permanent injunction would be of no use. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent forwarded series of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court stating that practice of amendment of pleadings at the fag end of the trial should be deprecated. 17. However, in the case on hand, specific plea of the petitioners is that during the course of trial they were dispossessed of the plaint schedule property, therefore it cannot be held that they ought to have taken the steps for amendment of pleadings at the initial stage itself. The delay of three months in filing an application for seeking proper relief from the date of cause of action is not inordinate in the opinion of this Court. Furthermore, law does not prohibit a party to seek proper relief through amendment of pleadings. As earlier discussed, even the exercise of the Court by scrutinizing the evidence on record and giving a decision basing on the merits of the case would be futile resulting in wastage of the time of the Courts, as admittedly, the relief sought for while filing of the suit has become redundant and infructuous due to later developments. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have entertained the application and allowed the petition for amendment of pleadings. 18. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have entertained the application and allowed the petition for amendment of pleadings. 18. Before parting with the case, as the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon catena of decisions, it is obligatory on the part of this Court to place on record the gist of the said decisions and to state how the present case facts are distinguishable. The first case that is relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is that one the is rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between the SHIV GOPAL SAH ALIAS SHIV GOPAL SAHU Vs. SITA RAM SARAUGI AND OTHERS, (2007) 14 SCC 120 wherein their Lordships at para 12 held as follows : “12. It is quite true that this Court in a number of decisions, has allowed by way of an amendment even the claims which were barred by time. However, for that there has to be a valid basis made out in the application and first of all there had to be bona fides on the part of the plaintiffs and a reasonable explanation for the delay. It is also true that the amendments can be introduced at any stage of the suit, however, when by that amendment an apparently time-barred claim is being introduced for the first time, there would have to be some explanation and secondly, the plaintiff would have to show his bona fides, particularly because such claims by way of an amendment would have the effect of defeating the rights created in the defendant by the lapse of time.” 19. The observations made are not applicable to the case on hand as the petitioners herein have not projected any time barred claim and as they have shown their bona fides before the trial Court. 20. The second decision that is relied upon is also that of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between the STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS Vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, A.P., (2006) 12 SCC 119 wherein their Lordships at para 21 held as follows : “21. Principles governing amendment of pleadings are well settled. 20. The second decision that is relied upon is also that of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between the STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS Vs. PIONEER BUILDERS, A.P., (2006) 12 SCC 119 wherein their Lordships at para 21 held as follows : “21. Principles governing amendment of pleadings are well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC deals with the amendment of pleadings and provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such a 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. It is trite that though an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right under all circumstances, yet the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice. It is equally well settled that unless serious injustice or irreperable loss is likely to be caused to the other side, the Court should adopt liberal approach and not a hyper-technical approach, particularly in a case where the other side can be compensated with costs. Dominant object to allow the amendment in the pleadings liberally is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (See L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. V. Jardine Skinner & Co., Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai.) Nevertheless, one distinct cause of action cannot be substituted for another nor the subject-matter of the suit can be changed by means of an amendment.” 21. When the proposed amendment is gone through, this Court finds that the petitioners have not sought for any modifications of the facts of the case but they have only sought for amendment of prayer. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the light of the dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property, the prayer for permanent injunction has to be altered for recovery of possession. As earlier discussed, even the stand taken by the respondent through the written statement is that it is in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the relief sought for i.e., recovery of possession is an appropriate relief as per the version of both the parties. Therefore, seeking of such relief appears justifiable. 22. As earlier discussed, even the stand taken by the respondent through the written statement is that it is in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the relief sought for i.e., recovery of possession is an appropriate relief as per the version of both the parties. Therefore, seeking of such relief appears justifiable. 22. The third decision is the one that is rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between the P.A. AHAMMED IBRAHIM Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, (1999) 7 SCC 39 wherein their Lordships at para 8 held as follows : “8. Further, before applying the provisions of Order VI Rule 17, there must be institution of the suit. Any application filed under the provisions of different statutes cannot be treated as a suit or plaint unless otherwise provided in the said Act. In any case, the amendment would introduce a totally new cause of action and change the nature of the suit. It would also introduce a totally different case which is inconsistent with the prayer made in the application for referring the dispute to the arbitrator. Prima facie, such amendment would cause serious prejudice to the contention of the appellant that the claim of the respondent to recover the alleged amount was barred by the period of limitation as it was pointed out that the cause of action for recovery of the said amount arose in the year 1975 and the amendment application was filed on 30-3-1986. Lastly, it is to be stated that in such cases, there is no question of invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court under Section 151 CPC as it would nullify the procedure prescribed under the Code.” 23. In the case on hand, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent as its version and stand is consistent with the proposed amendment. 24. Next decision is also from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case between the STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, (2011) 12 SCC 268 wherein their Lordships at para 8 held as follows : “8. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER, (2011) 12 SCC 268 wherein their Lordships at para 8 held as follows : “8. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations.” 25. The last decision that is relied upon is from this Court in the case between MUTHUKUR GRAM PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. KAKUTURU RAMESH REDDY AND OTHERS, 2014 (2) ALT 526 (S.B.) wherein dealing with the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court at para 11 observed as follows : “11. In the instant case, admittedly, the trial has commenced, it was obligatory on part of the lower Court to come to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the plaintiffs could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Admittedly, the 1st plaintiff is a practising advocate. Admittedly, they filed suit for permanent injunction and they have not pleaded for declaration of right of easement. It is not necessary to consider whether a suit for bare injunction is maintainable even if the relief of declaration is not prayed. It is for the lower Court to decide the said issue, if raised by the parties at the time of deciding the suit. The 1st plaintiff, being a practising advocate, should not have stated that due to oversight, they did not seek the prayer for declaration of right of easement and further stated that he came to know about the same during the trial.” 26. In the said case, the suit that was being dealt with is for permanent injunction and the plea taken by the plaintiff to the suit for seeking amendment at a belated stage is that due to oversight he could not place the proper details. Observing that the 1st plaintiff being a practising advocate should not have take said plea, the Court held the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 should be disallowed. Observing that the 1st plaintiff being a practising advocate should not have take said plea, the Court held the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 should be disallowed. Therefore, the said finding given in the said decision cannot be applied to this case. 27. The learned counsel for the respondent projected that the petitioners have dragged on the matter for years together and finally filed an application for amendment, which is unjustifiable. Arguing on that aspect, the learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the proceedings sheet and the history of the case. When the said history is gone through which commences from 23.08.2013 and extends upto 13.02.2017, this Court finds that even for the respondent/defendant to adduce its evidence, number of opportunities were given and the matter was adjourned umpteen number of times. Therefore, the respondent cannot blame the petitioners in respect of delay in disposal of the case. 28. Thus, having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this Court considers that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application for amendment of pleadings so that the lis might have been disposed of by now. In the light of the findings given above, this Court considers desirable to allow this Civil Revision Petition. 29. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order rendered by the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in I.A. No.487 of 2016 in O.S. No.75 of 2009 dated 01.11.2016 is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed. 30. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that the suit is an old one and requires quick disposal, the trial Court is directed to fix time lines for carrying out amendment, for filing of neat copy, for filing of additional written statement, if required, by the respondent and then to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. No order as to costs.