The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties should be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side, and do not lead to the loss of a valid defence.

Headnote:
Amendment - Suit for Partition - Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C - [AMENDMENT] - [SUIT FOR PARTITION] - [Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C] - The court allowed the amendment in the plaint schedule property to correct the boundaries, holding that it will not change the cause of action or the nature of the suit, and will avoid further multiplicity of proceedings. The amendment was found necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties and did not result in injustice to the other side. The court emphasized that the amendment did not lead to the loss of a valid defence by the petitioner. The court dismissed the civil revision petitions, upholding the trial court's order allowing the amendment.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The 3rd defendant objected to the plaintiff's application for amendment in the plaint, arguing that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the amendment in the plaint schedule property to correct the boundaries was necessary for effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties and would avoid further multiplicity of proceedings. The court emphasized that the amendment did not lead to the loss of a valid defence by the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proposed amendment in the plaint schedule property would change the nature and character of the suit for partition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that all amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The court also highlighted that a prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless the amendment is mala-fide or results in the other side losing a valid defence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the civil revision petitions, upholding the trial court's order allowing the amendment in the plaint schedule property.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri T.P. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. The Civil Revision Petition No. 1637 of 2023 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.03.2023, passed in I.A.No. 1175 of 2022 in O.S.No. 547 of 2020, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

3. The Civil Revision Petition No. 1638 of 2023 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.03.2023, passed in I.A.No. 1176 of 2022 in O.S.No. 547 of 2020, on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

4. Both the civil revision petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The petitioner in both the revisions is the defendant No. 3 in the suit and the respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff whereas the respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 1 and 2 respectively in the suit. The plaintiff respondent filed the suit for partition and for separate possession with respect to the suit schedule property.

6. The 3rd defendant filed the written statement.

7. The plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed I.A.No. 1175 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C for amendment in the plaint, amendment to North boundary as “vanka” by deleting the word “forest” as also the Southern boundary as the “cart track in Yanamalagunta” by deleting the word “vanka” in the plaint schedule.

8. The 3rd respondent defendant/petitioner filed objection/counter requesting to dismiss the I.A. He submitted inter-alia that the plaintiff and the defendants had divided orally in the year 1988 with regard to the land in Sy.No. 576/1 to an extent of Ac.4.96 cents with the suit schedule mentioned property and in the said partition Ac.1.18 cents was allotted to each of them. The 3rd defendant sold his share to the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant and the plaintiff also sold his share to the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant and the possession was also delivered to the 2nd defendant. It was further submitted that in the written statement a plea was taken that the description of the suit schedule property was in correct and the suit schedule property was not a joint family property. The proposed amendment will change the nature and the character of the suit and by amendment, the plaint schedule property shall be shifted into the property of the said defendant No. 3.

9. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor allowed the application by order dated 16.03.2023.

10. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, held that the pleadings in the counter of the defendants raised rival issues and whether the 3rd defendant is having absolute right over the petition schedule property shall be decided only after the evidence and it cannot be decided at this stage. The court cannot go into the merits of the case of the parties at this stage. The counter averments are the defence taken in the main suit but there is no denial with regard to the wrong mentioning of the boundaries by the plaintiff. It further held that by amendment of the plaint schedule, it will not cause any prejudice and will not change neither the cause of action nor the nature of the suit and the same would avoid the further multiplicity of the proceedings.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced the same submissions as were advanced before the trial court that the plaint schedule property is not the joint property, the partition had already taken place and the plaintiff has no cause of action to get the partition.

12. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.

13. The submissions as advanced relate to the merit of the suit. It cannot be considered at this stage. The learned trial court was right in observing that the plea raised by the defendant can be decided only after adducing the evidence in trial. The nature of the suit is not changed by such amendment as it still remain the suit for partition. The change in the Northern and Southern bounda