This CRP is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2018 in I.A.No.86 of 2018 in O.S.No.8 of 2012 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Deverakonda, dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement by adding the plea of adverse possession.

2. Heard.

3. At the outset I find no illegality or perversity in the order impugned. The Trial Court dismissed the application on two main observations, firstly, that the petition is a belated one in the sense, the suit was filed on 04.01.2012, written statement was filed on 09.04.2012 and the I.A.No.86 of 2018 seeking amendment of written statement was filed on 17.02.2018 at the stage when the suit was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 and the petitioner has not shown any bonafides as she has not submitted satisfactory explanation for the delay of nearly six(6) years in filing the petition. Secondly, it was observed that originally in the written statement the defendant took the plea that she is the owner of the suit schedule property and now she wants to introduce an inconsistent plea of adverse possession which is impermissible.

4. I have gone through the impugned order which is a reasoned one. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC emphatically lays down that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In the instant case, the reason submitted by the petitioner/defendant for the delay is that at the time of drafting written statement, she in fact instructed her counsel to take the plea of adverse possession also but by oversight such plea was not taken in the written statement and the said mistake could be detected only when they were preparing for the trial. It is a far-fetching and fallacious explanation. Every party and counsel are required to meticulously go through the pleadings prepared by them and then the party has to sign on the pleadings and submit to the Court. The plea of adverse possession being an important one, it is difficult to believe that the defendant and her counsel by oversight could not take that plea and further, they did not detect such omission before filing the written statement into Court. At any rate, the defendant has not shown a plausible cause to overcome the mandate of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

5. In this regard, the decision of this High Court in Dhulipalla Srinivasa Rao v. Kandula Govardhan Rao and others, 2018(1) ALT 420 : 2018 (2) ALD 315 relied upon by the petitioner can be distinguished. In that case, the plaintiff filed the suit initially for cancellation of the sale deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant. During pendency of suit, plaintiff sought for amendment of the plaint to add relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Trial Court allowed the said petition. The defendant preferred CRP No.433 of 2016, wherein a learned Judge of this Court dealt with the aspect as to whether amendment of plaint cannot be permitted on the ground of delay. Relying upon the judgment of Apex Court in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu, (2002)7 SCC 559, the learned Judge held that on the ground of mere delay, however long it may be, an application for amendment cannot be rejected provided the facts of the case warrant allowing of the amendment. In Sampath Kumar, (supra), the Apex Court allowed the amendment sought for about 11 years after the institution of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff in that case was not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as were pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction which was pending. Thus it would appear, the Apex Court tested the amendment pet