R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.

This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Family Court, Kottarakkara in the application filed as I.A.No.1210/2018 in O.P.No.688/2016.

2. The petitioner has filed O.P.No.688/2016 in the Family Court seeking a decree of declaration that she is the absolute title holder of the petition A and B schedule properties. She has also sought a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from forcibly evicting her and her minor son from the petition C schedule property and the house therein. The respondents herein are the respondents in O.P.No.688/2016. The first respondent is the husband of the petitioner. The second respondent is the brother and the third and the fourth respondents are the parents of the first respondent.

3. At a stage when the case was posted for evidence, the petitioner filed the application I.A.No.1210/2018 for amendment of the petition. The amendment sought related only to the petition C schedule property. The averment in the original petition O.P.No.688/2016 is that the petition C schedule property having an extent of 15 cents was given to the share of the first respondent from his family and that the house in that property was constructed using the funds of the petitioner and her parents. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner sought to substitute the averment that the petition C schedule property was given to the share of the first respondent from his family with averment to the effect that the aforesaid property was orally gifted to her and the first respondent by the third and the fourth respondents on 12.03.2003. The petitioner also sought amendment of the relief portion of the petition seeking also a declaration that she and the first respondent have got ownership and possession over the petition C schedule property.

4. The respondents filed objection to the application for amendment denying the plea of oral gift of petition C schedule property by the third and the fourth respondents in favour of the first respondent. The respondents also contended that the petitioner has got no right over the petition C schedule property.

5. As per Ext.P3 order dated 08.06.2018, the Family Court dismissed the application for amendment. The Family Court has given the following reasons for dismissing the application for amendment of the original petition filed before it by the petitioner. They are : (1) The plea of oral gift of the petition C schedule property sought to be raised by the petitioner is inconsistent with the plea already raised by the petitioner that it is a property set apart to the share of the first respondent from his family (2) This Court has found in O.P.(FC) No.637/2016 that the petitioner has got no right in respect of the petition C schedule property as a shared household (3) In the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Punalur, that court has entered a finding that the house in the petition C schedule property is not a shared household (4) The application for amendment was moved by the petitioner just at the time of commencement of the evidence in the case (5) On 13.12.2017, this Court had directed the Family Court to finally dispose of the case within six months.

6. We have heard Sri. Govind Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri.Liju V. Stephen, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') reads as follows:

"17. Amendment of pleadings.--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no applicatio