1. This Civil Revision Petition is coming up "for admission".

2. Heard Sri P. Rajasekhar, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri Mohd. Moinuddin representing Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel representing R6.

3. It is stated that Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan had lodged caveat on behalf of R6. It is shown that R3 to R5 are not necessary parties in the above civil revision petition and the first respondent is no more.

4. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the unsuccessful petitioners/plaintiffs being aggrieved of an order, dated 24th day of March, 2009, made in I.A.No.161 of 2008 in O.S.No.846 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada.

5. The above said application i.e., I.A.No.161 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs praying for permission to amend the plaint by incorporating the material facts, which had been averred in the affidavit, filed in support of the application. The said application was resisted by the 6th respondent-6th defendant and the learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, after recording reasons came to the conclusion that the application is devoid of merits and, accordingly, dismissed the same with costs. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred by the unsuccessful petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Sri Rajasekhar, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners would maintain that the proposed amendment, which had been prayed for had been aimed in bringing the material particulars on record and these facts does not change the cause of action and the nature of the suit and no prejudice would be caused to the 6th defendant. The learned counsel also would maintain that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs do not propose to adduce any further evidence, and in such a case, not giving an opportunity to the revision petitioners for denying the will would cause great prejudice to them, hence, the application has to be allowed, at least on certain terms. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on several decisions in this regard. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel would submit that the proposed amendment became necessary in the light of the subsequent events and the step of giving an opportunity to file rejoinder also had not been followed. The learned counsel in all fairness would maintain that no doubt there is some delay in moving the present application but, in the light of the stand taken by the petitioners/plaintiffs that they do not propose to adduce any further evidence, even such a delay, can be compensated by imposing heavy terms. The learned counsel would maintain that if the relevant facts are not pleaded even at a later point of time, the parties may meet with certain complications, which would lead to more technical complications.

7. Per contra, Sri Mohd. Moinuddin, representing Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel appearing for R6, had taken this Court through the relevant facts and would maintain that it may be true that the rigour of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be watered down to some extent, in case of necessity arising out of the subsequent events. The learned counsel also would maintain that on a careful scrutiny of the facts, it is clear that even after the impleading application had been allowed, for nearly three years the revision petitioners slept over the matter and at the fag end when the matter had been posted for arguments, this application had been brought up and no cogent reasons for allowing the application had been specified in the affidavit, filed in support of the application. Hence, in any view of the matter, it cannot be said that even from the date when the sixth defendant was brought on record, the petitioners/plaintiffs have been diligent by moving any appropriate application for a p