ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful plaintiffs is directed against the orders, dated 26.02.2020, of the Junior Civil Judge, Muvva, dismissing I.A. No. 113 of 2020 (Old I.A. No. 1268/2018) in O.S. No. 95 of 2019 (old O.S. No. 96 of 2016) filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. 2. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Kolla, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri Y. Subramanyam, learned counsel for respondent/defendant. 3. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows: (a) The plaintiff No. 1 is a private employee in the State of Odisha and as such, the affairs of his agricultural property are being taken care of by his father, 2nd petitioner/2nd plaintiff. The respondent/ defendant tried to trespass into and occupy the suit land on 17.06.2018 at about 9 A.M. But the 2nd petitioner thwarted the attempt of the respondent and the respondent went away. On 18.06.2018, the respondent got filed a false police complaint against the 2nd petitioner through his wife and the same was registered as FIR in Crime No. 90 of 2018 of Kuchipudi P.S. Subsequently, on 27.07.2018, in the absence of the petitioners, the respondent again highhandedly transplanted paddy seedlings in an extent of Ac. 0.12 cents, i.e. Ac. 0.09 cents, in the south and Ac. 0.03 cents on the east of the schedule property, by encroaching the same and merged into his lands on both sides by forming new boundary bund to some extent on southern side, removed to a certain extent of eastern bund in south east corner, and altered to some extent remaining eastern boundary bund and a stone was implanted on south east corner by him to suit his false encroachment, without having any right. The total extent of land encroached is Ac. 0.12 cents which is shown in ‘B’ schedule property. Therefore, the petitioners are constrained to file this petition seeking amendment to include the reliefs of declaration of title and also possession in respect of said Ac. 0.12 cents. The cause of action for inclusion of these two reliefs arose only subsequent to filing of the above suit, i.e. on 17.06.2018 and 27.7.2018. The 1st petitioner is also entitled to future mesne profits, as an average yearly income of Rs. 5,000/- will be yielding through ‘B’ schedule property. 0.12 cents. The cause of action for inclusion of these two reliefs arose only subsequent to filing of the above suit, i.e. on 17.06.2018 and 27.7.2018. The 1st petitioner is also entitled to future mesne profits, as an average yearly income of Rs. 5,000/- will be yielding through ‘B’ schedule property. (b) The amendment sought for by the plaintiffs read as under: “(a) In the plaint schedule for the heading of “plaint Schedule filed on behalf of the plaintiff ‘A’ schedule filed on behalf of the plaintiffs” is to be substituted. (b) To add the plaint ‘B’ schedule as follows: ‘B’ schedule filed on behalf of the plaintiffs “Description of the land situated in the village of Bhatlapenumarru, Movva Sub-Registry, Krishna District. R.S. No. 555/3 Ac. 0.12 cents = 0.048 Htrts of wet land. Boundaries: East: Land of the defendant in R.S. No. 555/4 South: Land of the defendant in R.S. No. 555/5 West: Land of C.Santosh Kumar in R.S. No. 552 and land of the 1st plaintiff in R.S. No. 555/3 North: Land of the 1st plaintiff in R.S. No. 555/3.” (c) After Para No. 12 of the plaint, the Para No. 12-A to be added as follows: “(12-A) The 1st plaintiff came to know through the 2nd plaintiff that the defendant had tried to trespass into and occupy the suit land on 17.6.2018 at about 9.00 A.M. But, the 2nd plaintiff thwarted the attempt of the defendant and the defendant went away. On 18.06.2018 the defendant got filed a false police complaint against the 2nd plaintiff through his wife and the same was registered as FIR in Crime No. 90/2018 of Kuchipudi P.S. Subsequently, during the absence of both the plaintiffs, on 27-7-2018, defendant highhandedly transplanted paddy seedlings in a total extent of Ac. 0.12 cents, i.e. Ac. 0.09 cents on the south and Ac. 0.03 cents on the east of the schedule property, by encroaching the same and merged into his lands on both sides by forming new boundary bund to some extent on southern side and removed to a certain extent of eastern bund in south east corner and altered to some extent of remaining eastern boundary bund and a stone was implanted on south east corner by him to suit his false encroachment. Defendant has no right to do so. The encroached total extent of Ac. 0.12 cents is shown as ‘B’ schedule property. Defendant has no right to do so. The encroached total extent of Ac. 0.12 cents is shown as ‘B’ schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to amend the plaint to include the reliefs of declaration of title and also possession in respect of said Ac. 0.12 cents. The cause of action for the inclusion of this two reliefs arose only subsequent to filing of the above suit on 17.6.2018 and 27.7.2018. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to claim such reliefs by way of amendment of the plaint and also make consequential amendment in the plaint. Out of ‘B’ schedule property, an average yearly income of Rs. 5,000/- will be obtained for which the 1st plaintiff is entitled to the said future mesne profits.” (d) After Para No. 13 of the plaint, Para No. 13-A is to be added as follows: “(13-A) Cause of action for reliefs of declaration and possession arose on 17-6-2018 when the defendant tried to trespass into and occupy the schedule property and on 27-7-2018 when the 1st plaintiff was dispossessed by the defendant in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property and on the same day when the 2nd plaintiff informed the same to the 1st plaintiff.” (e) After Para No. 14, Para No. 14-A to be added as follows: “14-A as the suit is also for declaration and possession of ‘B’ schedule property the said reliefs are valued u/s 24(1) on 3/4th of the market value of ‘B’ schedule property, which comes to Rs. 1,03,500/- on which a court fee of Rs. 3,526/- is payable and paid.” (f) After end of the Para No. 15, 15-A Para to be added as follows: “(15-A) so far as declaration and possession reliefs of ‘B’ schedule property is concerned a court fee of Rs. 3,526/- is additionally paid.” (g) In Para No. 16, for the figures 10,000/- and words “Rupees Ten Thousand only” figures 1,13,500/- and words “Rupees one lakh thirteen thousand five hundred only” are to be substituted. (h) In Para No. 17 of the plaint, after relief (a), (a-1), (a-2) and (a-3) are to be added as follows: (a-1) declaration that the 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint ‘B’ schedule property. (a-2) delivery of ‘B’ schedule property to the 1st plaintiff by the defendant. (h) In Para No. 17 of the plaint, after relief (a), (a-1), (a-2) and (a-3) are to be added as follows: (a-1) declaration that the 1st plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint ‘B’ schedule property. (a-2) delivery of ‘B’ schedule property to the 1st plaintiff by the defendant. (a-3) to grant future mesne profits to be ascertained subsequently on a separate application from 27-7-2018 till the date of delivery. (i) In the body of the plaint, i.e. in Para Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 17 wherever “plaint schedule” words occurred, insert ‘A’ in between the word “plaint” and word “schedule.” 4. The defendant filed counter denying the averments of the plaintiffs and further contending further as follows: The suit was filed for permanent injunction in respect of Ac. 0.54 cents in R.S. No. 555/3 of Bhatlapenumarru village with specific boundaries. The case of the respondent/defendant, right from the beginning, is that the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 0.11 cents of wet land out of Ac. 0.54 cents in R.S. No. 555/3 of Bhatlapenumarru village, i.e. plaint ‘B’ schedule property shown in the amendment petition. The respondent is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of Ac. 0.11 cents of land in R.S. No. 555/3 of Bhatlapenumarru. The father of the respondent/ defendant got Ac. 0.23 cents of wet land in R.S. No. 555/2 and 555/3 of Bhatlapenumarru village, in partition and after his demise, this defendant has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said Ac. 0.23 cents and some other properties with absolute rights, title and possession. The boundaries mentioned in the proposed plaint ‘B’ schedule property are incorrect and false. In such a situation, the question of trespass into the land of the petitioners/ plaintiffs does not arise. The plaintiffs are never in possession of ‘B’ schedule property at any time or even prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands. There are no specific boundaries to the proposed Ac. 0.12 cents of land in R.S. No. 555/3 of Bhatlapenumarru village on field. It is part and parcel of Ac. 1.38 cents of wet land belonging to this defendant. There are no bona fides in the petition. The alleged cause of action is false and incorrect. The plaintiffs have not complied with the mandatory provisions of law. 0.12 cents of land in R.S. No. 555/3 of Bhatlapenumarru village on field. It is part and parcel of Ac. 1.38 cents of wet land belonging to this defendant. There are no bona fides in the petition. The alleged cause of action is false and incorrect. The plaintiffs have not complied with the mandatory provisions of law. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. On merits, the trial Court dismissed the petition of the plaintiffs holding that the proposed amendments would change the nature of the suit and that the case of the petitioners will not fall within the ambit of ‘due diligence’ to permit the amendment. Therefore, the aggrieved plaintiffs are before this Court. 6. The revision petitioners, while reiterating their pleaded case, further urged in the grounds of revision as follows: The petition seeking amendment was filed on 20.08.2018, i.e. within three weeks from the date of illegal occupation and as such, there was no delay in approaching the Court. The nature of the suit does not change and all the amendments sought to the plaint are only consequential to the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments necessitated in view of the subsequent events after filing of the suit. The trial Court failed to understand the nature of the amendment and erred in dismissing the petition under the wrong impression that the proposed amendment relates to total schedule property. The plaintiffs are seeking declaration of title only in respect of the extent of Ac. 0.12 cents, which was illegally occupied by the defendant after filing of the suit. The observation of the trial Court as regards ‘due diligence’ is misconceived, as the petition seeking amendment was filed immediately after illegal occupation made by the defendant. 7. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the defendant has encroached part of the plaint schedule property shortly before filing of this petition on the specified dates, making the petitioner to seek amendment of the plaint. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another, AIR 2002 SC 3369 wherein at paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11, it was held as follows: “9. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu and Another, AIR 2002 SC 3369 wherein at paragraph Nos. 9, 10 and 11, it was held as follows: “9. Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings and on such terms as may be just. Such amendments as are directed towards putting-form and seeking determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. The question of delay in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof. In former case generally it can be assumed that the defendant is not prejudiced because he will have full opportunity of meeting the case of the plaintiff as amended. In the latter cases the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and that shall have to be answered by reference to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down. The fact remains that a mere delay cannot be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment. 10. An amendment once incorporated relates back to the date of the suit. However, the doctrine of relation back in the context of amendment of pleadings is not one of universal application and in appropriate cases the Court is competent while permitting an amendment to direct that the amendment permitted by it shall not relate back to the date of the suit and to the extent permitted by it shall be deemed to have been brought before the Court on the date on which the application seeking the amendment was filed. [See observation in Siddalingamma and Another vs. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561 ]. 11. In the present case the amendment is being sought for almost 11 years after the date of the institution of the suit. [See observation in Siddalingamma and Another vs. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561 ]. 11. In the present case the amendment is being sought for almost 11 years after the date of the institution of the suit. The plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. In order to avoid multiplicity of suits it would be a sound exercise of discretion to permit the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession being sought for in the pending suit. The plaintiff has alleged the cause of action for the reliefs now sought to be added as having arisen to him during the pendency of the suit. The merits of the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be judged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment. However, the defendant is right in submitting that if he has already perfected his title by way of adverse possession then the right so accrued should not be allowed to be defeated by permitting an amendment and seeking a new relief which would relate back to the date of the suit and thereby depriving the defendant of the advantage accrued to him by lapse of time, by excluding a period of about 11 years in calculating the period of prescriptive title claimed to have been earned by the defendant. The interest of the defendant can be protected by directing that so far as the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of possession, now sought for, are concerned the prayer in that regard shall be deemed to have been made on the date on which the application for amendment has been filed.” 9. No doubt, it is true that if an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is filed subsequent to commencement of trial, the petitioners have to establish that in spite of due diligence, the proposed amendment could not be taken earlier. Since it is the case of the petitioners that the allege encroachment has taken place just before filing of this petition, there is no question of not exercising ‘due diligence’ to take such relief on any date prior to the alleged date of encroachment. Since it is the case of the petitioners that the allege encroachment has taken place just before filing of this petition, there is no question of not exercising ‘due diligence’ to take such relief on any date prior to the alleged date of encroachment. Since it is a fact to be tried by taking evidence as to whether the dates specified by the petitioner are true or not or whether the defendant has been in possession of the said property even prior to filing of the suit, in the absence of any evidence on record now available indicating that this petition is only to overcome the lapses in the case, it is not proper for this Court to disallow the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy by way of amendment of the plaint, more particularly when there is a serious dispute as regards the title. However, the trial Court found that the present petition, if allowed, would change the nature of the suit. In any case, where a suit originally filed for perpetual injunction, when changed to the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession, the nature would change. But, that does not mean that such a relief cannot be permitted at all by way of amendment, or else, the very purpose of Order VI Rule 17 CPC would be defeated if the facts and circumstances in any particular case change after filing of the suit. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that this is a fit case to allow the revision petition. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 26.02.2020, of the Junior Civil Judge, Muvva, dismissing I.A. No. 113 of 2020 (Old I.A. No. 1268/2018) in O.S. No. 95 of 2019 (old O.S. No. 96 of 2016) and allowing the said petition. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall stand closed.