The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which restricts amendments after trial commencement unless due diligence is proven.

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.58/2007 before the Subordinate Judge of Sankari. The petitioner is none other than the sister of the 1st respondent and the second respondent is the daughter of the 1st respondent. The petitioner/plaintiff and the 1st respondent are the daughter and son of one Ramasamy Reddy and the suit property originally belonged to the father of the petitioner/plaintiff and the 1st respondent namely Ramasamy Reddy. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit seeking following prayer;

(a) granting a preliminary decree of partition, dividing the suit properties into two equal shares according to the good and bad nature of the soil and allot one such share to the plaintiff and put her in separate possession thereof by metes and bounds and making provisions for passing of final decree by appointing a Commissioner to effect partition;

(b) granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner alienating or encumbering any portion of the suit properties to any third parties, before lawful partition in respect of the properties is effected; The respondents/defendants also filed a written statement denying all the allegations and stated that the suit is devoid of merits and the same should be dismissed. The petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.260/2009 to amend the plaint. The respondents/defendants also filed a counter objecting the same. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the application was filed belatedly i.e. the suit is filed in the year 2007, whereas the said application filed in the year 2009. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present CRP.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is wrong and illegal and without any basis and justification and also the trial Court wrongly dismissed the amendment petition. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered that under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the Court is empowered to allow the amendment at any stage of the suit and does not alter the nature of the suit or cause of action. The trial Court failed to see the sufficient pleadings and evidence for the additional relief sought. Further, he submitted that the trial Court dismissing the amendment petition would result in miscarriage of justice. Also, he relied on the following judgments to support his proposition;

i.M.C.AGRAWAL HUF Vs. M/s.SAHARA INDIA AND Ors. Reported in AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2887.

ii.C.V.RAMBABU Vs. V.C.JAYANTHI reported in 2009 (2) CTC 387

iii.PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA AND OTHERS Vs. REPAKA VENKATA RAMANA

KISHORE AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 11 SCC 308.

iv.SAMPATH KUMAR Vs. AYYAKANNU AND ANOTHER reported in 2002 (4) CTC 189. v.C.RAJAMANI Vs. C.RATHNABAI reported in 2009 (4) CTC 213.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submitted that the trial Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and came to a correct conclusion. He relied on the following judgments to support his proposition.

(i)VIDYABAI AND OTHERS Vs. PADMALATHA AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 2 SCC 409.

(ii)REVAJEETU BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS Vs. NARAYANASWAMY & SONS & OTHERS reported in 2009 (13) SCALE 241.

He further submitted that the said application was filed belatedly and no reason was stated for filing application. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.

5. This present suit is granting preliminary decree of partition, dividing the suit properties into two equal shares and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner alienating or encumbering any portion of the suit properties. The present amendment petition