This revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, dismissing I.A.No.424 of 2011 in O.S.No.133 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner, under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.

2. The facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the present civil revision petition, are as infra:

i) Petitioner instituted O.S.No.133 of 2009 against the respondents herein before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, seeking the following reliefs:

a) To cancel the gift settlement deed No.4607/2006, dated 27.10.2006 and registered sale-deed No.6018/2009, dated 26.08.2009, registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Suryapet.

b) To restrain the defendant No.3 from alienating the suit schedule land to others by way of gift, sale, mortgage or otherwise, till disposal of the suit.

c) Costs of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff.

d) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems just in the interest of justice to award may also be awarded to the plaintiffs.

ii) The defendants/respondents filed a written statement resisting the suit. In the said suit, the plaintiff/petitioner filed I.A.No.424 of 2011 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking amendments to the plaint and the defendants/respondents filed a counter, opposing the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by virtue of an order dated 22.03.2013, dismissed the said application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.

3. Calling in question, the validity and the legal acceptability of the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Heard Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner, apart from perusing the material available on record. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the absence of the counsel before the Court below, the Court below had no occasion to properly consider the issue. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the plaintiff/petitioner underwent operation as such he could not attend the Court. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the proposed amendments would not change the nature of the suit and in fact, the same are essential for complete adjudication of lis between the parties to the litigation.

6. In the above back ground, now the questions, which arise for consideration of this Court are – whether the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is sustainable and tenable, and whether the same requires any correction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. As per the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., the courts are authorised to permit the parties to the litigation to alter or amend the pleadings. The said provisions of law also obligate the courts to allow the amendments, which would be necessary and essential for the purpose of determining or resolving the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is a settled law that the procedural aspects are handmaid of justice and are intended for advancement of justice and not to penalise the parties. Though the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, in view of the language employed, the approach of the Courts is required to be liberal but not hyper technical. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C are meant and intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating the same. The object of Rule 17 of Order 6 is that the Courts should try the merits of the cases that come before them and allow all amendments which would be essential for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, provided the same do not cau