ORDER : Defendant in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order, dated 11.11.2021 in I.A.No.358 of 2021 in O.S.No.145 of 2010 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Pattikonda. 2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.145 of 2010 against the defendant seeking perpetual injunction. 3. In the plaint, it was contended inter alia that originally suit schedule property belonged to one Akula Sreenivasulu being purchased by his father, Chagi Akula Veeranna, under registered sale deed, dated 30.07.1982; that Chagi Akula Veeranna in turn sold the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.21,100/- and he received Rs.1,100/- towards part consideration; that Chagi Akula Veeranna executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff; that on 31.10.1993 and 01.11.1993, said Chagi Akula Veeranna received entire amount and endorsed on the back-leaf of the said sale agreement; that after purchase of open site, plaintiff erected a bunk in part of the property and obtained electricity connection; that plaintiff obtained permission from Gram Panchayath vide proceedings, dated 04.02.2009 to construct a shed in the open site; that Gram Panchayat assigned door No.20/140/1-5; that while so Chagi Akula Veeranna and his son died; that later wife of Chagi Akula Veeranna registered the property in the name of plaintiff after receiving Rs.1,50,000/-; that MRO Pattikonda also issued possession certificate in respect of suit schedule property; that on 29.09.2010, defendant, who has no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property, trespassed into the suit schedule property in the absence of plaintiff and his family members and destructed the shed forcibly; that plaintiff rushed to the suit schedule property and obstructed the defendant from removing the bunk; that defendant openly proclaimed that he will come again and disturb the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Thus, suit was filed for permanent injunction. 4. Defendant filed written statement and contended inter alia that the defendant purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 19.04.2010 from A. Sanjamma; that the Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Pattikonda accorded permission on 25.06.2010 for construction of the house; that Panchayath Secretary, Gram Panchayath, Pattikonda also issued receipt for construction of house fee for Rs.790/- on 14.10.2010; that plaintiff who is having no right is trying to grab the defendant’s property and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Trial in the suit commenced. 5. Trial in the suit commenced. Plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination on 13.09.2017. Exs.A1 to A88 were marked. Plaintiff was cross-examined on 27.04.2018 and 23.08.2018. On 23.08.2018 further cross-examination was deferred. 6. At that point of time, plaintiff filed present application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the suit schedule property. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that pending the suit, he constructed three sheds in place of destructed shed. He filed photographs and CD as well as receipt to show construction of three sheds in place of destructed shed. CD and photographs were marked as Exs.A85 to A88. Thus, application is filed seeking amendment to include existing sheds in the place of shed destructed by the defendant. 8. Defendant filed counter and opposed application. In the counter it was contended that plaintiff without having any right or title or possession over the suit schedule property, obtained temporary injunction. The present application is filed only to drag on the proceedings. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 9. Trial Court by order, dated 11.11.2021, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 10. Heard both sides. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, plaintiff did not disclose as to when he constructed sheds after the alleged destruction by the defendant. He would submit that the suit was filed in the year, 2010 and the application for proposed amendment was filed in the year, 2021 without mentioning particulars as to when construction was made. He would further submit that by virtue of amendment, plaintiff tried to prove possession over the suit schedule property and the same is not permissible. Hence, prays to set aside the order under revision. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting order of the trial Court would contend that pending the suit, plaintiff constructed three sheds. In September, 2017, affidavit in lieu of chief examination was filed and it was mentioned about the plaintiff constructing new sheds in the place of destructed shed. Photographs and CD were marked as Exs.A85 to A88. Thus, prays to dismiss the revision. 13. The point to be considered is whether trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing petition for amendment? 14. Photographs and CD were marked as Exs.A85 to A88. Thus, prays to dismiss the revision. 13. The point to be considered is whether trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing petition for amendment? 14. No doubt suit was filed for injunction simplicitor. In the plaint, it was contended that defendant destructed the shed. As per original plaint schedule, it is vacant land and later he constructed a shed, which was destructed by the defendant. However, pending the suit, according to the plaintiff he constructed three sheds. Plaintiff filed Exs.A85 to A88 in that regard. After marking of those exhibits, application is filed seeking amendment. 15. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others, 2009 (10) SCC 84 , the Hon’ble Apex Court culled out factors to be considered while dealing with application for amendment. “On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (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; and (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. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” 16. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr., AIR Online 2022 SC 283, the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the entire case law summarized as follows: “70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleading falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence, negative. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence, negative. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) amendment does not result in injustice to the other side. (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer of amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. (ii) The amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) The prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between in parties, the amendment should be allowed. ..” 16. No doubt, the application in this case was filed when the suit is coming for arguments. One of the guidelines culled out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Revajith Building Developers’s case and Life insurance Corporation’s case is, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for proper and effective adjudication of the case, amendment can be ordered. However, if the amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes nature and character of the case, the amendment cannot be ordered. 17. Trial Court while allowing application specifically observed that plaintiff has to prove his possession on the date of filing of the suit. Observation of trial Court that in a suit for injunction, plaintiff has to prove possession on the date when suit is filed is settled principle of law. The amendment now sought by the plaintiff regarding structures, which were constructed pending the suit, according to the plaintiff. Observation of trial Court that in a suit for injunction, plaintiff has to prove possession on the date when suit is filed is settled principle of law. The amendment now sought by the plaintiff regarding structures, which were constructed pending the suit, according to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff fails to prove possession on the date when suit is filed, he will be non-suited and no injunction will be granted in his favour. The proposed amendment, in the opinion of this Court will not change nature of the suit. As observed supra, the plaintiff has to prove his possession on the date when suit is filed for perpetual injunction. Since, the trial Court has taken care of the same, this Court does not find any illegality in the order under revision. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.