ORDER : 1. Defendants in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 31.01.2022 in I.A. No. 1139 of 2019 in O.S. No. 207 of 2019 (old O.S. No. 65 of 2016) on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram. 2. Respondent, being the plaintiff filed suit O.S. No. 65 of 2016 on the file Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 07.03.2013 in respect of plaint schedule property which was obtained by defendants 1 to 4 by fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation without any consideration and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from alienating the plaint schedule property etc. Suit was renumbered as O.S. No. 207 of 2019 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Gannavaram. 3........ (a) In the plaint, it was contended inter-alia that plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property and the same was gifted to plaintiff by her mother at the time of her marriage; that pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of plaintiff; that in February, 2013 defendants 1 to 4 approached and requested the plaintiff to arrange money for higher studies of defendants 3 and 4 and when the plaintiff expressed her inability, defendants informed that one Velagapudi Vasudeva Rao, husband of sister of 2nd defendant agreed to provide money with a condition of executing mortgage deed in respect of schedule property; that considering the future of defendants 3 and 4 and believing the words of defendant 1 and 2, plaintiff signed all the papers on the impression that transaction was mortgage deed; that 2nd defendant also took pattadar pass book and title deed. (b) Plaintiff came to know through Metlapalli Sivaiah, who is cultivating tenant of schedule property about the execution of sale deed said to be executed by plaintiff in favour of defendants 1 to 4 for a consideration of Rs. 9,56,000/- that no consideration was passed and the defendants have no capacity to pay the sale consideration; that the plaintiff has been suffering from diseases and attending different hospitals for treatment and eventually, filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra. 4. 9,56,000/- that no consideration was passed and the defendants have no capacity to pay the sale consideration; that the plaintiff has been suffering from diseases and attending different hospitals for treatment and eventually, filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra. 4. Written statement is filed by defendants 2 to 4 and the suit is being contested. 5. Pending the suit, plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1139 of 2019 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint seeking recover of possession of property. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of said petition, it was contended inter-alia that along with plaint I.A. No. 243 of 2016 was filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the schedule property. I.A. No. 244of 2016 was filed for ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession of plaint schedule property. Pending those interlocutory applications, defendants took possession of schedule property by force in December, 2016; that upon filing memo dated 24.04.2017 by the petitioner, I.A. No. 244 of 2016 was closed as infructuous. In view of developments, plaintiff filed application for recovery of possession of property. 7. Respondents 2 to 4 filed counter and opposed the application. It was contended inter-alia that at the time of execution of sale deed, plaintiff delivered pattadar pass book and title deed; that revenue authorities updated the revenue records and mutated the names of defendants; that pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued; that defendants 2 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of the property; that plaintiff has to prove that reliefs sought is within the limitation and that if the amendment is permitted, it will give unfair advantage to the plaintiff and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 8. During the enquiry, no oral evidence was let in by the parties. However, Exs.R-1 to R-7 were marked on behalf of respondents/defendants. 9. Trial Court by order dated 31.01.2022 allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, respondents/defendants filed the above revision. 10. Heard Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for revision petitioners/defendants and Sri Suresh Kumar Chodisetti, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff. 11. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit that issues in the suit were framed on 16.07.2019 and the application was filed on 11.12.2019. Since, the trial of the suit is commenced, no amendment is permitted. No reasons were assigned as to why the application was not filed immediately. 11. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit that issues in the suit were framed on 16.07.2019 and the application was filed on 11.12.2019. Since, the trial of the suit is commenced, no amendment is permitted. No reasons were assigned as to why the application was not filed immediately. He also would submit that revision petitioners/defendants by filing written statement asserted about possession. He also would submit that no specific date was assigned in the affidavit regarding the alleged dispossession and the amendment is barred by limitation. 12. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff supported the order of the trial Court. 13. Undisputed facts in the case are that plaintiff in the suit is mother of 1st defendant and mother-in-law of 2nd defendant. Defendants 3 and 4 are granddaughters. Thus, parties are closely related. 14. Plaint schedule property as per the averments in the plaint, was gifted to the plaintiff by her mother at the time of her marriage. Defendants 3 and 4 are prosecuting Engineering and BDS. Plaintiff averred in Para-8 of plaint that she has been suffering with diseases and has been taking treatment from different hospitals. Regarding the ailments, defendants also contended in the written statement that plaintiff offered to sell the property with her own will with an intention to clear debts borrowed from several money lenders to meet her medical expenses. 15. Suit was filed on 08.06.2016 for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 07.03.2013. Application seeking amendment was filed on 11.12.2019. Written statement was filed in the suit, issued were settled on 16.07.2019 and thereafter suit was posted for trial. Learned counsel for revision petitioners would submit that since the issues were framed, trial is deemed to be commenced and hence, trial Court ought not to have allowed the amendment. Learned counsel for revision petitioners relied on Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Others vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, (2006) 12 SCC 1 and Baldev Singh and Others vs. Manohar Singh and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 498 . 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Usha Devi vs. Rijwan Ahamd and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 717 while referring to the judgment in Ajendraprasadji’s case (supra), observed thus: “From the above quoted passage, it appears that the decision did not hold that settlement of issues marks the commencement of trial. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Usha Devi vs. Rijwan Ahamd and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 717 while referring to the judgment in Ajendraprasadji’s case (supra), observed thus: “From the above quoted passage, it appears that the decision did not hold that settlement of issues marks the commencement of trial. Earlier in the decision, the Court exhaustively examined the proceedings from date to date and on that basis came to hold and find that the prayer for amendment was made after the commencement of trial.” 17. In fact, in Usha Devi’s case (supra), suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with rights of plaintiff over the schedule property and also to direct the defendants not to build or demolish the building already in existing in the suit land. Description of property was sought to be amended, after framing of issues. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court and the High Court interfered with the above decision and eventually allowed the appeal on payment of costs. When it was sought to be contended before the High Court by placing reliance on Ajendraprasadji’s case (supra) and contended that settlement of issues is the date of commencement of trial, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as extracted supra. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court also observed as follows: “We may clarify here that in this order we do not venture to make any pronouncement on the larger issue as to the stage that would mark the commencement of trial of a suit but we simply find that the appeal in hand is closer on facts to the decision in Sajjan Kumar (2005) 13 SCC 89 and following that decision the prayer for amendment in the present appeal should also be allowed.” 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh and Others vs. Manohar Singh and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 717 held thus: “17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As noted hereinbefore, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion to the court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings.” 19. In Sajjan Kumar vs. Ram Kishan, (2005) 13 SCC 89 the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be allowed as the trial court, while rejecting the prayer for amendment has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and by the failure to so exercise it, has occasioned a possible failure of justice. Such an error committed by the trial court was liable to be corrected by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, even if Section 115 CPC would not have been strictly applicable. It is true that the plaintiff-appellant ought to have been diligent in promptly seeking the amendment in the plaint at an early stage of the suit, more so when the error on the part of the plaintiff was pointed out by the defendant in the written statement itself. Still, we are of the opinion that the proposed amendment was necessary for the purpose of bringing to the fore the real question in controversy between the parties and the refusal to permit the amendment would create needless complications at the stage of execution in the event of the plaintiffappellant succeeding in the suit.” 20. In the instant case, issues were framed. In the instant case, issues were framed. Going by the material available on record including the observations of the trial Court, affidavit in lieu of chief examination is not filed. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that trial Court rightly exercised its discretion and allowed the petition filed by plaintiff seeking amendment. 21. As noted supra, parties to the suit are closely related. Plaintiff, who is senior citizen filed the suit to cancel the registered document. In Pankaja and Others vs. Yellappa (D) by LRs. and Others, AIR 2004 SC 4102 the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “If the granting of an amendment really sub-serves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed.” 22. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others, (2009) 10 SCC 84 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment, which are: (1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case? (2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala-fide? (3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. (4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation. (5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. 23. In Abdul Rehman and Others vs. Mohd. Ruldu and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 341 the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “All amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties should be allowed if it does not change the basic nature of the suit. A change in the nature of relief claimed shall not be considered as a change in the nature of suit and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interests of doing full and complete justice between the parties.” 24. Suit is one for cancellation of sale deed. Consequential relief, initially sought for, is injunction. By virtue of amendment, plaintiff is asking for relief of recovery of possession instead of injunction. Suit is one for cancellation of sale deed. Consequential relief, initially sought for, is injunction. By virtue of amendment, plaintiff is asking for relief of recovery of possession instead of injunction. The nature of the suit will not be changed by virtue of amendment. The contention of revision petitioners/defendants that the revenue authorities updated revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deed and in fact, they have been in possession of the property from the date of suit document, are issues to be decided after adducing evidence. Learned counsel for revision petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monika Pandit Mahale and Others, (2020) 11 SCC 549 . A perusal of facts therein would indicate that evidence was started and thereafter application was filed by the plaintiff. Hence, the principle laid down in the said decision will not apply to the facts of this case. 25. The correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment should not be gone into at the time of considering as to whether an application for such amendment should be allowed or not. If an amendment which introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of the case, such amendment may not be allowed. However, amendment which would not cause injustice to the opposite party and may not change the nature of suit would normally be permitted. The primary consideration of the Court would be to see as to whether such amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy and whether the same can be allowed without causing prejudice to the other side. 26. The due diligence test as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, as indicated supra, is made out by the plaintiff in the case on hand. Plaintiff, mother is fighting litigation without the assistance of son. Though the daughter in-law, 2nd defendant contended that 1st defendant is addicted to vices and has been residing with his mother, these are questions to be answered during the course of trial. 27. The scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 675 . 27. The scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was considered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 675 . The order of the lower is neither perverse nor the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction while allowing the petition. Hence, the order of the trial Court allowing the amendment does not call for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 28. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. 29. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.