1. Against the orders dated 07.12.2015 and 08.01.2016 passed in dismissing the three applications filed in I.A.Nos.1446, 1447 and 1449 of 2015 respectively, that were filed by the revision petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.509 of 2012 and the written statements respectively in O.S.Nos.106 of 2009 and 507 of 2012, the three revision petitions are maintained.

2. The parties in these three revision petitions are almost one and the same (to be detailed below) and therefrom at request of the learned counsel for the parties, all the three revision petitions are taken up for common hearing and disposal.

3. Coming to the relevant factual background:

(a). The revision petitioner in all the three revisions by name Smt. M. Seetharatnam is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.509 of 2012 and 2nd defendant in O.S.Nos.160 of 2009 & 507 of 2012 respectively. From the above, the suit of revision petitioner-plaintiff in O.S.No.509 of 2012 is first in point of time filed as O.S.No.633 of 2000 before its renumbering on transfer supra.

(b). She filed the suit O.S.No.633 of 2000 and same while pending on the file of 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, transferred to the file of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and is renumbered and pending as O.S.No.509 of 2012, for the reliefs of setting aside the registered sale deeds said to have been executed by her on 04.06.1998 and 05.06.1998, vide document Nos.1243 & 1244 of 1998, in favour of the 1st defendant-Siruvuri Venkata Rama Raju, whose wife is the 2nd defendant-Ammaji and the other defendants 3 & 4 are by names Smt. M. Ramadevi and Smt. S. Padmavatamma. It is alleging in the plaint that said sale deeds are null and void, for not supported by consideration and having been obtained by fraud and coercion.

(c). She is no other than the 2nd defendant in O.S.Nos.160 of 2009 and 507 of 2012, out of the three defendants including her husband and son respectively, that were filed for recovery of mortgage money on the foot of alleged mortgage deeds dated 28.11.1997 and 05.02.1996. The defendants 1 to 4 of O.S.No.509 of 2012 supra are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.507 of 2012 and the defendants 1 & 2 of O.S.No.509 of 2012 supra are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.160 of 2009.

(d). The three suits are under contest with respective plaint claims and its denial with written statements rival claim. The suits while in trial progress, she sought for amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.509 of 2012 and the respective written statements in O.S.No.160 of 2009 and O.S.No.507 of 2012 and it is against dismissal of said three petitions for amendment of the pleadings, the three revisions filed as referred supra.

4. Heard both sides at length and perused the material on record and the provisions and propositions placed reliance as per rival contentions of both sides, one side is impugning the legality and correctness of the orders in seeking to allow the revisions and the other side is supporting the orders in seeking to dismiss the revisions.

5. Now, the common points that arise for consideration are:-

(i) Whether the three impugned orders require interference by sitting in revision and if so, with what observations and what extent respectively?

(ii) To what relief?

POINT No.1:

6. Before discussing facts further, it is needful to discuss scope of law on amendment of pleadings prior to and subsequent to the CPC amendments.

6.(a). Coming to the scope of Order VI Rule 17 prior to the amendment by Acts 46/99 & 22/2002, several expressions of the Constitutional Courts referring to and relying upon the pre-constitutional expressions of the privy council and several High courts and Courts of other countries laid down that even at the stage of second appeal amendment of pleadings can be allowed, if it is necessary to shorten the litigation or to decide real controversy between parties or to avoid future complications like in final decree proceedings or execution, provided that does not