6. Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revisions, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case between Vishamodh Gowbhuja Samaj, Giriraj Lane, Hyderabad Vs. Mahboob Begum (died) by LRs .[1] submitted that it is not advisable to drive the parties to another round of litigation and in stead of it, the petitioner may be permitted to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. though initially the suit was filed for injunction simplicitor. His main submission is that though initially the suit for injunction was filed, but in view of the subsequent developments and in view of the highhanded construction carried out by the respondent over the suit schedule property and the subsequent sale by the respondent in favour of Y.Saraswathi, the proposed amendment became necessary and similarly, adding of the subsequent purchaser as a party to the proceedings has also become necessary and that the Court below has filed to consider all these aspects and dismissed the applications.
