No bonafide reason given for delay in filing application for amendment of plaint.

(Civil Revision Petition, filed under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 01.12.1999 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.3167 of 1999 in O.S.No.689 of 1998, as stated therein.)

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 01.12.1999 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A.No.3167 of 1999 in O.S.No.689 of 1998, dismissing the Petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C, declining to amend the Plaint. The Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

2. O.S.No.689 of 1998:- The Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the "A-Schedule” Property and for Partition of his half share in the "B-Schedule” Properties. "A-Schedule” Property is the Rice Mill. "B-Schedule” Properties comprise of 13 items. Case of the Plaintiff is that he has been in enjoyment of "A-Schedule” Property – Rice Mill. In lieu of the share given to the Defendant in S.No.54/5 of Periyamampattu – vacant site and the house thereon, the First Defendant was allotted the property in S.No.13/4 and the terraced house thereon at Vilakkur Village. The Plaintiff and the First Defendant are in common enjoyment of the "B-Schedule” Properties. While being so, the First Defendant has created false document as if the Deceased Father – Kandasamy had bequeathed the "B-Schedule” Properties in favour of the First Defendant and the Second Defendant. The said documents are false and not binding upon the Plaintiff. Claiming a share in the "B-Schedule” Properties, the Plaintiff has issued a Legal Notice dated 08.06.1998. Since the First Defendant had not effected Partition, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Partition, claiming his half share in the "B-Schedule” Properties. The Suit is also filed for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the "A-Schedule” Property.

3. After the filing of the Suit, as per the Order in I.A.No.3040 of 1998, the Sisters of the Plaintiff and the First Defendant had been impleaded as Defendants 3 to 5.

4. Denying the allegations in the Plaint, the First Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that "A” and "B” Schedule Properties are the self-acquired properties of Kandasamy Mooper. Kandasamy Mooper was doing business in Paddy and Jaggery and the properties were self-acquired properties purchased from out of his own income. The Suit Properties were acquired not with the aid of income from the Joint Family Properties. The Plaintiff has been well educated and Kandasamy Mooper has also secured a decent job for the Plaintiff. Out of his free Will and volition, Kandasamy Mooper has executed a Registered Will dated 20.05.1998 bequeathing "A-Schedule” Property to the First Defendant and "B-Schedule” Properties to his Son – the Second Defendant. The Plaintiff has no right or interest in the Suit Properties. To defeat the lawful right of Defendants 1 and 2, the Plaintiff has fabricated an Unregistered Will in favour of Sister – D-3. The Plaintiff, who is working as Sub-Registrar had given Police Complaint to harass the Defendants. The Suit has not been properly valued. Only at the instance of the Plaintiff, D-3 has been impleaded as the Defendant. The Plaintiff is not entitled for Permanent Injunction nor for Partition of "B-Schedule” Properties.

5. I.A.No.3167 of 1999:- This Application has been filed by the plaintiff to include few more Items of Immovable Properties to "B-Schedule” Properties. According to the Plaintiff, those Items have been omitted to be included in "B-Schedule” Properties. The Plaintiff averred that the Suit cannot be effectively adjudicated unless those Items of Properties are included in "B-Schedule” Properties.

6. Opposing the Application, Defendants 1 and 2 have filed the Counter Statement, contending that the Plaintiff being employed as Su