C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Aggrieved by the order, dated 24.03.2017, passed in I.A. No. 606 of 2016 in O.S. No. 43 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, wherein an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint was allowed, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Article 227 of the Contitution of India.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 43 of 2012 seeking division of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff being her ancestral right and another 1/3rd share from out of the share of her father with metes and bounds by taking into consideration the good and bad qualities. Pending the said suit, I.A. No. 606 of 2016 came to be filed by the plaintiff to add one more item of the family property to the suit schedule property and to make consequential amendments therein.

3. A counter came to be filed by the petitioners stating that the property mentioned in O.S. No. 69 of 2016 is a separate property of first petitioner and that the same does not belonged to Yarlagadda Ramaiah, who was never in possession of the same. It was further stated that the said suit was decreed in favour of the 1st petitioner against the plaintiff and others directing them not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the over the property. It is also stated that without disclosing the said fact, the plaintiff filed the present application seeking amendment of the plaint.

4. After considering the rival submissions made, the trial Court allowed the petition holding that in the absence of any cogent evidence, it is not desirable to rely on the contention of the respective parties to decide as to whether the particular property is the ancestral or joint. It is pleaded that even if any relief is granted to the petitioner, the same does not change the basic structure of the suit but only adds one more item to the schedule annexed to the original plaint and the rights of the parties can be adjudicated after a full fledged trial. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the property is not the ancestral or family property of the plaintiff and that she has never enjoyed the same. It is urged that she does not have any joint share in the said property as well. The said property was purchased by the mother of respondent No. 1 in his name when he was minor and submits that the said property is the self acquired property of defendant No. 1.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the subject property was purchased in the name of defendant No. 1, when he was minor, and the same is not self acquired property of defendant No. 1. Hence, the plaintiff is also having share in the said property.

7. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer to Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., which reads as under:-

"17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such 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.

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed 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."

8. A perusal of the material on record would show that defendant No. 1 filed O.S.No.69 of 2016, seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff and others, stating that it is a separate property. The said suit was decreed in his favour granting permanent injunction against the plaintiff and others which was not brought to the notice of the Court.

9. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v.