1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 12.04.2006 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi in I.A. No. 607 of 2005 in O.S. No. 301 of 2001.

2. I have heard both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

3. The impugned order relates to amendment of plaint filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC r/w rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice by the respondent/plaintiff in a suit for partition claiming half share in the schedule mentioned property to include some more properties which are said to be liable for partition between the parties which were not discovered by the respondent at the time of filing of the suit since she was given in a marriage to a person residing in the State of Tamil Nadu and has been living there since long time.

4. The petition was opposed by the revision petitioners on the ground that the entire ancestral joint family properties were apportioned under a partition list dated 15.04.1985 and the properties sought to be annexed to the schedule by means of amendment fell to the share of the second petitioner/second defendant and they are his self acquired properties. It was also contended by the revision petitioners that the amendment petition has been prompted by mala fides and the same was filed after a long lapse of four years, obviously with a view to protract the litigation to harass the revision petitioners.

5. The learned trial Court thought that the questions as to whether there was any partition in the properties fell to the second petitioner has to be decided during the course of the trial in the main suit and the proposed amendment will not alter the nature of the suit or cause of action if it is allowed and accordingly allowed the amendment petition by imposing costs of Rs. 500/- on the respondent because inordinate delay occurred in filing the amendment petition.

6. A plain reading of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC indicates that the object in allowing the amendments is for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties and if the court thinks that such amendment is necessary, it may at any stage of the proceeding allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms. The proviso lays down that the Court shall not entertain the application for amendment after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

7. It requires to be noticed that Rule 17 of Order VI dealing with amendment of pleadings as it existed prior to C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999 and C.P.C (Amendment) Act, 2002 provided that “the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such a manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.”

8. The legislature thought that Rule 17 as it existed in its original form was being invoked by the parties invariably in every suit, appeal or proceedings, more particularly by the parties interested in protracting the litigation and considering the provision as the one quite often being mis-used, deleted Rule 17 from the Code by means of C.P.C (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999). However, the said amendment was not enforced owing to serious protests and demonstrations by the lawyers all over the country demanding retention of Rule 17 in the statute book.

9. The Parliament after reviewing the position, having wide enough consultations and discussions with the experts in the field of law including lawyers, restored Rule 17 by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002. This time, the Legislature inserted new proviso to the Rule which lays down that no application for amendment of the pleadings shall be allowed after trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that i