Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Defendants 5 to 9 in O.S. No. 5053 of 1990 being aggrieved by order dated 1-2-2017 allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to amend the plaint are before this Court.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court.

3. Plaintiff has instituted the suit in question i.e., O.S. No. 5053 of 1990 for the relief of partition and separate possession of suit properties as described in Schedule A and Schedule B of the plaint and claiming share of ¼th and 5/12th respectively. Prayer for declaring the Will dated 22-1-1988 said to have been executed by the father of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 is also sought on the ground that it is a forged document. When the matter was at the stage of final arguments, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of plaint and Trial Court by order dated 1-2-2017-Annexure-A has allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants 5 to 9 are before this Court.

4. I have heard the arguments of Sri Dhyan Chinnappa and Sri S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Advocates appearing for the parties.

5. Notice to respondents 2 to 4 namely defendants 1, 3 and 4 is dispensed with.

6. By consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal though listed in preliminary hearing.

7. It is the contention of Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendants 5 to 9 that Trial Court has erred in not considering the objections filed by defendants 7 to 9 in proper perspective and amendment sought for would alter the very nature of the suit and the plaintiff is attempting to seek for the relief, which they have virtually waived at the initial stage of filing of the suit itself and the relief sought for under the proposed amendment is barred by limitation and there has been inordinate delay. He would contend that when plaintiff himself has consented for the transaction, the same is now sought to be assailed by the proposed amendment. It is also contended that plaintiff had given up his claim in respect of shares transferred in favour of defendant 4 in the original plaint by not seeking for such transfer being either illegal, void or not binding on them, though it was specifically pleaded by him with regard to said transaction in paragraph 14 of the plaint and as such, the plaintiff cannot be now permitted to reintroduce the such pleading by proposed amendment. He would also contend that plaintiff in a suit for partition does not have any vested right in the movables properties of the subject-matter of suit and doctrine of lis pendens would inapplicable and as such proposed amendment sought for incorporating plea with regard to transfer of shares during pendency of suit was liable to be rejected. It is also contended that plaintiff has not explained as to the prejudice or injury that would be caused, if the proposed amendment is not allowed and the very fact that plaintiff had not claimed any relief with regard to transfer of share by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 4 would itself clearly indicate that plaintiff had waived his right and same analogy would be applicable insofar as other transactions of shares also and as such, by relying upon the judgments in: (i) L.C. Hanumanthappa (since dead) represented by his L.Rs v. H.B. Shivakumar, (2016) 1 SCC 332; (ii) A. Ilyas Ahmed v. Mohammed Ashfaque, 2016 SCC Online Kar. 5994; (iii) K.V. Sathyamurthy and Others v. K.G. Srinivasa and Others, 2016 (2) Kar. L.J. 325; (iv) Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sansthan Maryadit (Regd.) v. Ramesh Chander and Others, judgment dated 19-10-2010 in SLP (Civil) No. 1518 of 2008; (v) Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others, (2009) 10 SCC 84 and (vi) Radhika Devi v. Bajrangi Singh and Others, (1996) 7 SCC 486, he would pray for allowing the writ petition and for setting aside the impu