IMPORTANT POINT
Amendments to pleadings must be made in good faith and should not cause prejudice to the opposing party, especially if they seek to withdraw prior admissions.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff is directed against the orders, dated 21.07.2023, dismissing I.A. No. 99 of 2023 in O.S. No. 238 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 151 CPC to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint by way of inserting Para No. 5c in the interest of justice.

2. Heard Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants Nos. 3, 5 & 8. The notices sent to the defendants Nos. 2 & 4 to the addresses as before the trial Court were returned un-served with an endorsement ‘no such addressee’. The 6th defendant died. Though the defendants Nos. 1, 7 & 9 were served, there is no appearance on their behalf. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The case of the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking amendment, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendants No. 1 to 8 for partition of the plaint schedule properties and to allot 1/7th share to him. During the course of trial, the defendants impleaded the respondent No. 9 as the defendant No. 9 as he purchased an extent of ac.0.87 cents (item No. 1 of written statement schedule property) of agricultural land from the plaintiff through a registered sale deed, vide document No. 2451/2007, dated 21.05.2007. In the said sale deed, it was recited that the schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and that after the death of his father, the joint family properties were orally partitioned between the plaintiff and his brothers before 1985 and that in the said oral partition, the schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff. The sale deed was prepared by a document writer at the instance and instructions of the purchaser, i.e. defendant No. 9. The plaintiff is not aware of the said recital until filing of the petition to implead the defendant No. 9 basing on the said sale deed. No such oral partition of the joint family properties took place in between the plaintiff and his brothers prior to 1985 and the said recital which was mentioned in the sale deed was not made upon the instructions of the plaintiff and he is not aware about such recitals till filing of the petition to implead the defendant No. 9. The joint family properties which were inherited by the plaintiff and his brothers from their father on his death were not partitioned so far. As the joint family properties were not partitioned and the defendants Nos.1 to 8 are not coming forward to partition the plaint schedule properties, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit. As there is no such oral partition of properties as recited in the sale deed, the plaintiff was advised to insert a Para by way of amendment in the plaint with regard to the said recital in the sale deed, which was made without his knowledge and consent. Hence, it is prayed to permit to amend the plaint by inserting Para 5c.

(b) The proposed amendment sought to be inserted as Para No. 5c reads as hereunder:

“The plaintiff humbly submits that he sold away Written Statement Schedule item No. 1 property through sale deed dated 21-05-2007, vide document No. 2451/2007 to the defendant No. 9. In the said sale deed, it was recited that the schedule property is the ancestral property and that after the death of father of plaintiff, the joint family properties were orally partitioned between the plaintiff and his brothers before 1985 and that in the said oral partition, the schedule property in the sale deed fell to the share of the plaintiff etc. The plaintiff submits that the said sale deed was prepared by a document writer at the instance and instructions of the purchaser, i.e. defendant No. 9. It