This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 31.10.2013 in I.A.No.554 of 2013 in O.S.No.148 of 2009 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District.

I have heard Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 8, Mr. B. Satyanarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5, and Mr. N. Jairaj, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7.

All the learned counsel submitted that respondents 2 to 4 are sailing with the petitioner and, hence, there is no need for service of notice on them.

The short issue that arises for consideration in this revision petition is ‘whether the order under revision rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment of the plaint is in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure?’.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above-mentioned suit filed for partition of items 1 to 28 of ‘B’ schedule lands by metes and bounds, granting 20% share each to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 etc. The other reliefs sought in the suit are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, the petitioner pleaded that on 14.02.1996, the parties to the suit entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, agreeing to divide/settle the schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties among themselves, that in view of the subsequent settlement, some of the terms of which are totally inconsistent with the terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.02.1996, the subsequent Memorandum of Understanding and its terms and conditions prevail over the earlier family settlement dated 06.03.1995. In I.A.No.554 of 2013, the petitioner sought amendment of paragraph 8 in the plaint by substituting the words “prevail over” with the words “are in continuation of”. The contesting respondents resisted the said application by stating that the proposed amendment will change the entire pleadings and the same is inconsistent with the original plea. The trial Court accepted the plea of the contesting respondents and rejected the application. In rejecting the application of the petitioner, the lower Court has purportedly placed reliance on the judgments in Kantham Narasimha Reddy v. Buchaiah (1999 (1) ALT 313)and Alimineti Sadanandam v. Daripelly Narayana Charyulu (2007 (3) ALT 624).It has also observed that in support of his plea that the later document was entered into in continuation of the previous document, the petitioner has not placed any piece of evidence or any single reason as to why and for what purpose the said amendment has to be carried out and that the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent pleas.

In the first place, it needs to be observed that at the stage of amendment, the Court is not concerned with the prima facie evidence to prove the proposed pleadings. All that the Court needs to see is whether by permitting the amendment, the plaintiff introduced a new cause of action or the proposed amendment alters the nature and character of the suit altogether. Indeed, Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. per se does not prescribe any restrictions on the Court permitting amendment except to the extent that the party who seeks amendment shall satisfy the Court that in spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. However, by way of judicial precedents, the Courts have laid down various parameters for exercising the power by the Court under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.

In Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and another ((2002) 7 SCC 559 = AIR 2002 SC 3269) the Apex Court demarcated a line between the pre-trial and post-trial amendments and held that in the former cases, the Courts must be more liberal in allowing amendment of pleadings as the opposite party will have more opportunities to rebut the amended pleadings than in the latter cases. While holding that the delay in filing the application for amendment by itself does not