The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay alone is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleadings or filing of additional counter statement, and the court should be liberal in granting leave for subsequent pleadings, as long as no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.960 of 2019 in O.S.No.404 of 2009, dated 18.02.2020 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the defendant. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff. The respondents No.s 2 to 4 are the defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The 1st respondent filed suit in O.S.No.404 of 2009 for partition of the schedule properties against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 before the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole (for short “trial Court”). During the course of trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.960 of 2019 under Order VIII Rule IX of the CPC by contending that herself and her son viz., late Singaiah had succeeded the property to an extent of Ac.3.67 cents which were stands in the name of her husband at Pallamalli village, which was got by him through settlement deed executed by his maternal uncle Karicheti Anjaneyulu and further she is having half share in the amount and those were collected by the 1st respondent /plaintiff from the postal and LIC authorities, on account of intestate death of her son and by mistakenly those particulars are not placed in her written statement by way of schedule, so as to partition the same in between them. There is no dispute about the existence of the same and the said facts are admitted by the 1st respondent herein in her evidence. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition.

3. No counter was preferred by the 1st respondent/plaintiff herein.

4. On hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed by the petitioner/defendant.

5. Heard Sri N. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner is not permitted to file additional written statement, much prejudice will cause to the petitioner as the suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule properties and the pleading to add some more properties as schedule in the schedule properties is neither a counter claim nor a set off and mere adding the two more properties to the suit schedule, the nature of the suit and cause of action for the suit will not change and no prejudice will cause to the 1st respondent/ plaintiff herein and prays this Court to allow the Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments:

(1) Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally and others, 2009 SCC Online SC 1253 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

10. So far as this ground is concerned, we do not find that delay is a ground for which the additional counter statement could not be allowed, as it is well settled that mere delay is not sufficient to refuse to allow amendment of pleadings or filing of additional counter statement. At the same time, delay is no ground for dismissal of an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure where no prejudice was caused to the party opposing such amendment or acceptance of additional counter statement which could easily be compensated by cost. That apart, the delay in filing the additional counter statement has been properly explained by the appellant.”

15. It is also well settled that the courts should be more generous in allowing the amendment of the counter statement of the defendant then in the case of plaint. The High Court in its impugned order has also observed that in order to file an additional counter statement, it would be open to the defendant to take inconsistent plea. The prayer for acceptance of the additional counter statement was rejected by the High Court on the ground that while allowing such additional counter statement to be accepted, it has to be seen whether it was expedient with reference to the circ