IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment of plaint – All amendments which are necessary for determination of real question in controversy between parties are required to be allowed, unless proposed amendment has propensity to cause irretrievable prejudice to adversary.

ORDER

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the Order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur in I.A.No.496 of 2019 arising out of O.S.No.82 of 2011. The learned Court Below has rejected an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C where the Petitioner/ Plaintiff tried to amend plaint.

2. The brief facts of the matter is that:

The petitioner being the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of settlement deed dated 03.11.2009 as null and void. The settlement deed was executed in favour of the 1st respondent/ 1st defendant. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing Written Statement. Issues are framed. Thereafter, the suit was proceeded in the Trial. After conclusion of the trial, the matter was posted for arguments. At the stage, the petitioner/plaintiff filed application for amendment.

3. The brief facts of the amendment is that the plaintiff intends to seek a declaration of his title by the strength of a will executed by his brother namely Nidiganti Narayanarao.

4. The learned Court Below after hearing the parties has passed Impugned Order. The learned Court Below has opined that the proposed amendment sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff is a legal plea. If the petitioner is entitled to get a decree in respect of Settlement Deed in question to be null and void, automatically, he would be entitled to the plaint schedule property; for such legal plea, the amendment is not required.

5. The learned Court Below has also opined that he has not asked the relief for Declaration over the plaint schedule property before commencement of trial on the basis of will at the stage of argument he cannot seek such relief.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the Specific Declaration was not sought for by the plaintiff but the plaintiff has properly described his right title and interest over the suit schedule property which was devolved upon petitioner/plaintiff by way of will. He further submits that by seeking amendment, in introducing a new paragraph, the plaintiff has not tried to introduce new fact; no new prayer has been made there under. He submits that by such proposed amendment the nature and character of the suit would not be changed, and it is formal in nature.

7. She further submits that the learned Court Below has specifically stated that there is a legal plea which can be amended. She further submits that during framing of the issues, the learned Court Below has specifically framed one issue as to whether the will dated 09.03.1992 is true valid and binding on the defendant.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the Impugned Order passed by the learned Court below suffers no illegality. During the entire proceedings of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has not asked for any relief for declaration of plaint schedule property on the basis of will. Now at the stage of argument, the proposed amendment has been placed. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of the parties to seek amendment after initiation of trial.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submits that according to provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C, the Court cannot permit amendment after commencement of trial unless the parties seeking amendment has shown reasons and due diligence to justify that before initiation of trial, he could not file the amendment.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the learned Court Below has specifically opined that it is a legal plea for which amendment is not required. The petitioner/plaintiff, if entitled to get the decree by the operation of law they would get the title of the suit property for which no amendment is required to be asked.

11 Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that there is no illegality or impropriety of impugned order. Thus, the Civil Revision Petition has no merit to entertain. Learned counsel for the resp