Amendments to pleadings are permissible if they do not change the nature of the suit and aim to prevent multiplicity of litigation.

ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

The plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 27.03.2024 in I.A.No.614 of 2023 in O.S.No.4 of 2015 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court –Cum- III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

2. The plaintiffs initially filed O.S.No.4 of 2015 against defendants 1 to 5, i.e., the respondents herein, seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties. Pending trial, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.591 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 read of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to implead Bandi Venkata Sreeramulu and Kolla Shirisha as defendants 6 and 7 and for consequential amendments. The said I.A. was allowed on 20.03.2024.

3. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.614 of 2023 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 28 of Cr.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating paragraph ‘e’ in paragraph III, after the sub-paragraph “f”, in the plaint. By way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs pleaded for the insertion of the following:

‘the registered sale deed dated 22.04.2006 said to have been executed by the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule property; registered settlement deed dated 17.05.2007 said to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Kolla Shirisha in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule property; registered General Power of Attorney –cum- sale agreement dated 07.04.2010 executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property; registered sale deed dated 11.08.2011 said to have been executed by defendants 2 and 3 along with two minor sons of defendant No.3 in favour of Bandi Venkata Sreeramulu in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule; registered settlement deed dated 07.07.2007 said to have been executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule; registered sale deed dated 08.10.2012 said to have been executed by defendants 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of item No.7 of the suit schedule, are not binding all the plaintiffs and the registered sale deed dated 04.05.2006 executed by plaintiff No.1 and defendants 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of item No.5 of the suit schedule is not binding on plaintiffs 2 and 3 and to order for consequential amendment of the plaint’.

4. In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.614 of 2023, it was contended that the counsel, engaged earlier, died and after engaging another counsel, it was noticed that pleading was made regarding nominal and collusive documents. However, the words ‘not binding’ are not specifically pleaded in the plaint. Hence, the amendment petition.

5. Respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 filed counter and opposed the application.

6. The trial Court, by order dated 27.03.2024 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

7. In the revision, notice was ordered and service was affected on respondent No.5, despite which, there is no representation on his behalf.

8. Heard Smt. T.V. Sridevi, learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the suit was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties.

In the plaint, it was pleaded that the registered sale deed dated 22.04.2006 under which item No.4 of the suit schedule is sold, is nominal; that the registered settlement deed dated 17.05.2007, was executed clandestinely; that the sale transaction by plaintiff No.1 and defendants 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.5 is not