.

Manish Pitale, J.

1. The petitioners (original defendants) have filed this writ petition challenging order dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur (Trial Court), whereby application for amendment of plaint filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (original-plaintiffs) has been allowed.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of properties against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The declaration sought by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was in respect of two Will Deeds and after written statement was filed on record, they sought declaration in respect of another Will. It was the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that all the three Wills were null and void and that the petitioners, as also respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were required to be restrained from dealing with the suit property since respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had share in such properties.

3. The basis for the claims made in the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was that they and the defendants had half blood relationship as their father was the same person named Pandurangji Patil, while their mothers were different wives of the said Pandurangji Patil. The suit was resisted by the petitioners and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 by placing reliance on the aforesaid will deeds and claiming that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had no right in the suit property.

4. After the pleadings were complete, the evidence of the parties was recorded and at that stage, on 11.03.2016, an application was moved on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for amendment of the plaint. It was contended in the said application that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were illiterate ladies and that due to mistake of their counsel, prayer for decree of partition and claiming share was not incorporated and that the said respondents desired to have a specific prayer for decree of partition and share in the suit property to be incorporated in the plaint. This was resisted by the petitioners.

5. By impugned order dated 05.07.2016, the Trial Court allowed the application filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, holding that despite the trial having commenced, the amendment deserved to be allowed because pleadings pertaining to the proposed relief were already on record, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had clearly stated that they did not wish to lead any further evidence and that no prejudice was likely to be caused to the petitioners upon the amendment being allowed. On this basis, the Trial Court allowed the application for amendment filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition.

6. Mr. D.L. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the exercise of power by the Trial Court in the present case in allowing the application for amendment was on the basis of improper interpretation of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. It was contended that the trial had not only commenced, but the recording of evidence was also complete and that at such belated stage, the amendment could not have been allowed by the Trial Court. It was submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 could have sought the relief of partition when the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed and that allowing the amendment amounted to changing the nature of the suit, thereby demonstrating that the impugned order was unsustainable. It was submitted that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC clearly operated against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and that therefore, the writ petition deserved to be allowed.

7. Per contra, Shri P.D. Randive, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, submitted that the Trial Court was justified in allowing the amendment of plaint because the said respondents had clearly stated that they did not wish to lead any further evidence in respect of the proposed prayer pertaining to partition to be added by way of amendm