M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 118 of 2017 in O.S. No. 2178 of 2012 passed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 02.03.2017, dismissing the application filed under Order VI rule 17 r/w 151 C.P.C and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practices (for short 'Rules')

2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.516 of 2016 under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w 151 C.P.C to implead defendants 2 to 4 and the same was allowed on 02.09.2016 as the defendants sold the property during pendency of the suit. Thereafter, no consequential amendment was made to the plaint as required under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practise. Therefore, the I.A.No.118 of 2017 is filed seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint incorporating several paragraphs employed, both in the affidavit and the petition, including cause of action in the suit.

3. The respondent filed counter, denying material allegations disputing the proposed amendments, contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the plaint, as it is belated and at the present stage, the petition is not maintainable. Moreover, in the absence of any explanation for the delay, the proposed amendment cannot be permitted at this stage, as the suit reached for argument stage, after completion of entire trial.

4. The Trial Court upon hearing argument of both the counsel, dismissed I.A.No.118 of 2017 on the ground that it is belated and the petitioner failed to satisfy the ingredients of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.118 of 2017 dated 02.03.2017, the present revision is filed raising several contentions, mainly on the ground that the order of the Trial Court is contrary to the law and the Court did not appreciate the specific ground assigned by the petitioner for filing the petition and further contended that when a petition in I.A. No.118 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner, a petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C also must be permitted. But the Trial Court did not take into consideration the facts and circumstances under which the petitions are filed and committed serious error in dismissing the petition.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sharad Sanghi would contend that as I.A. No.516 of 2015 was filed under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C, and when allowed the petitioner is entitled to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C r/w Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practise, for the mistake of advocate, the party should not suffer. The bar under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C as amended by Act 22 of 2002 has no application to the consequential amendment, thereby, the Court cannot dismiss the petition in view of the bar under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C and requested this Court to allow the revision, setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No.118 of 2017 in O.S. No.2178 of 2012 dated 02.03.2017.

6. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents Sri Nazir Ahmad Kham supported the order passed by the Trial Court, mainly contending that, when the suit is posted for argument after completion of recording of evidence and marking of documents, leave cannot be granted to amend the pleadings, in view of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C, unless the petitioner explains the reasons for his failure to file a petition despite exercise of due diligence and therefore, the Court can exercise power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. Undisputedly, the petitioner filed suit for recovery of delivery of possession, perpetual injunction and other consequential reliefs in O.S.No.2178 of 2012. But, the respondents in the written statement raised additional pleas contending that the property was already sold prior to filing of the suit. Therefore, in view of additional plea, the petitioner filed the petition in I.A.No.516 of 2016 under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C to implead the respondent