or. 6, rule 17 of c.p.c. - whether the averments on the basis of which the application for amendment was filed are correct or not are not germane for consideration at the time of considering the application for amendment. Such averments can be put to test only in the trial. The only question that is relevant at the time of considering the application for amendment is whether such amendment is permissible in law. The law is well settled that the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction is entitled to seek amendment by claiming relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession and that such amendment does not alter the nature of the suit. (See Sampath Kumar, Appellant v. Ayyakannu and another2)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY               CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1723 of 2012     01-11-2012  Bhanoth Mangamma     Chitla Ram Reddy   Counsel for Petitioner:  Mr.Ashok Reddy Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Dantu Srinivas                                  <GIST:  >HEAD NOTE:     ?CITATIONS:   2002 (6) ALT 219  ORDER:           This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 13.03.2012 in I.A.No.538 of 2011 in O.S.No.112 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon.          I have heard Mr. Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Dantu Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent.         The respondent filed the above-mentioned  suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the suit schedule property.  He has later on filed I.A.No.538 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint in order to claim the relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to demolish the structures.   It is the pleaded case of the respondent that  initially an order of status quo was granted on 17.11.2009, which was extended upto 14.12.2009, and   that later on, due to non-functioning of the Court on account of an agitation, the status quo order was not extended and  that taking undue advantage of the absence of the interim order, the petitioner has illegally encroached upon the suit schedule property and raised the structures.         The petitioner resisted the said application by pleading that by permitting the amendment of the plaint, the whole nature and character of the suit will undergo a radical change.  She has further pleaded that the averments relating to her encroaching upon the property and raising constructions after the expiry of the order of status quo are totally false and  that on such averments, the amendment cannot be allowed. The lower Court, on consideration of the rival pleas, allowed the application for amendment, by its order dated 13.03.2012. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this Revision Petition.         At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in Sayanna and another v. Thimmanna and another1 in support of his contention and  submitted that as held by this Court in the said judgment, by allowing the amendment of the respondent, the lower Court has allowed the whole character of the suit altered.         Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the facts in Sayanna (supra) are completely different and that the lower Court has considered the said judgment and distinguished the same on the facts of the present case.         I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.         Taking the second submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner first,  whether the averments on the basis of which the application for amendment was filed are correct or not are not germane for consideration at the time of considering the application for amendment.  Such averments can be put to test only in the trial.   The only question that is relevant at the time of considering the application for amendment is  whether such amendment is  permissible in law.   The law is well settled that the plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction is entitled to seek amendment by claiming relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession and that such amendment does not alter the nature of the suit. (See Sampath Kumar, Appellant v. Ayyakannu and another2)         A perusal of the order of the lower Court would show that  it has considered the judgment in Sayanna (supra) and distinguished the same on the facts of the present case.   In that case, this Court held that by allowing the application for amendment, by which the plaintiff sought to plead adverse possession, it would prejudice the interests of the defendant as he may be denied the rights flowing under the Occupancy Rights Certificate under Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.  This Court also observed that as the amendment was sought five years after filing of the suit, the relief claimed by way of amendment was barred by limitation. Therefore, in my opinion, the lower Court has rightly distinguished the judgment in Sayanna (supra) and allowed the application of the respondent.  Hence, I do not find any error jurisdictional or otherwise in the order of the lower Court allowing the application for amendment filed by the respondent.         For the above-mentioned reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.          As a sequel, CRPMP.No.2305 of 2012 filed for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. _______________________     C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J       01.11.2012