An application to amend the plaint is maintainable even after passing of the preliminary decree, since the suit is not terminated and proceedings are continuous.

JUDGMENT

1. The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.10.2016 in I.A.No.123 of 2013 in O.S.No.57 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District, whereby the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC ") to amend the plaint so as to implead item No.6 i.e. Ac.2.42 cents of land situated in R.Mallavaram village in S.No.318/4 and to make consequential amendment in the plaint, was allowed.

The brief facts which led to filing of this revision are that the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.57 of 2005 seeking partition of suit schedule properties and for allotment of their legitimate shares. After trial, a preliminary decree was passed on 04.06.2008 on merits to divide the schedule properties into nine equal shares and to allot one such share each to the plaintiffs and defendants. It is averred that subsequent to filing petition in I.A.No.487 of 2008 to pass final decree, one third party by name Mallavaram Gowri filed an application in I.A.No.829 of 2009 to implead her as a party to the final decree on the ground that she purchased the property out of the plaint schedule property from the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed dated 28.08.2008 in E.P.No.96 of 2008 in O.S.No.391 of 2007. After going through the said sale deed, the plaintiffs came to know that 3rd respondent also purchased an extent of Ac.2.42 cents of land in S.No.318/4 of R.Mallavaram village. On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that the said property is a joint family property, which is liable for partition. The alleged transaction between the 1st defendant and Mallavaram Gowri is only collusive and fraudulent. They came to know about omission of said property in the plaint schedule, when the 3rd respondent got herself impleaded in final decree proceedings.

The 3rd respondent (revision petitioner herein) filed counter denying that Ac.2.42 cents of land in S.No.318/4 is the selfacquired property of the father of the plaintiffs by name Balagurunadha Achari and after his death both the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 succeeded the same. It is averred that the entire plaint schedule properties are ancestral properties of 1st defendant. The father of 1st defendant got two wives. The 1st defendant was born through his first wife and the plaintiffs were born through his second wife. The 1st defendant became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule properties and he agreed to sell the same to 3rd respondent under an agreement of sale dated 21.04.2006. Later when 1st defendant failed to execute sale deed, she filed O.S.No.391 of 2007 and obtained sale deed in E.P.No.51 of 2008 and took possession of the property, as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the property. The proposed amendment will take away the right accrued to the 3rd respondent.

The Court below after conducting enquiry held that it is not the case of the respondents that the property sought to be included in the plaint schedule is not the joint family property and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inclusion of said property will not change the nature of the suit and accordingly, allowed the said petition. Assailing the same, the present revision is filed.

2. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/3rd respondent and Sri Kurra Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/3rd plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below erred in holding that the petitioner did not deny that the property purchased by her is the joint family property, since in the counter it is stated that the said property is the absolute property of the 1st defendant. He further submits that observation of the Court below is contrary to the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC, which clearly states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to