JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1.This revisional application is preferred at the behest of the petitioners challenging the impugned order No. 33 dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Port Blair, District of South Andaman in connection with Title Suit No. 130 of 2018 (renumbered as Title Suit No. 196 of 2019).

2. By passing the impugned order learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners (herein) under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for amendment of the plaint.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court the instant revisional application is filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners (herein).

4. The petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit with a prayer for partition in respect of the suit property. The defendant No. 2/opposite party No. 2 (herein) entered appearance in that suit and filed his written statement denying all the material allegations as stated in the plaint. It is submitted by the petitioners that several documents/records have been placed alongwith written statement but the copy of the Will dated 8th July, 2009 was not made part of the written statement, neither proper particulars and details have been furnished in their written statement enabling these Plaintiffs to meet their defense case.

5. Mr. Jayapal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the trial of the suit has not yet been commenced. After engaging the newly advocate by the plaintiffs and upon perusal of pleadings it is found that formal amendment in the plaint is required under the law for effective adjudication of the suit.

6. Accordingly, plaintiffs/petitioners have filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC before the learned Trial Court with a prayer of amendment of the plaint. Defendants have filed their written objection against the said amendment. After hearing of both the parties the learned Trial Court rejected the application praying for amendment filed by the plaintiffs by passing the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 by holding that the plaintiffs could not raised the matter before commencement of Trial and this amendment application is not necessary for adjudication of the case.

7. Mr. Jayapal, learned counsel further contended that the impugned order suffers from palpable and patent irregularity and by this proposed amendment the nature of the suit in no way would be changed as in the present frame of suit. More over only issues have been framed but the evidence taking process has not yet been started. So, it cannot be said that the trial has been commenced.

8. Despite service affected upon the respondents they do not venture to appear in this case and contest the revisional application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.

9. The short important question that arises for consideration in the present revision application is with regard to the power of the Court to allow an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. The Scope of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C and the manner in which the Courts ought to consider applications for amendment is quite well settled by a long line of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

10. The Apex Court in case of Baldev Singh and Others Vs. Manohar Singh and Another reported in (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498 wherein it was held at paragraph 8 as under:

“It is well settled by various decisions of this Court as well as the High Courts in India that courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of the Privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung [(1920- 21) 48 IA 214 : AIR 1922 PC 249] in which the Privy Council observed: (IA pp. 216-17)

All rules of court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice, and it is ther