Point of Law :
It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the ad- ministration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost

JUDGMENT :

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the order, dated 29.04.2019, passed in I.A.No.267 of 2019 in O.S.No.27 of 2013, by the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby, the petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, for amendment of written statement, was allowed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would contend that the trial in the subject suit in O.S.No.27 of 2013 had commenced by filing the chief affidavit of P.W.1 and marking of the documents. The Court below, under the premise that trial in the subject suit has not commenced, was pleased to allow the subject interlocutory application. The learned counsel further submits that the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 have to establish that in spite of due diligence, such plea was not taken before commencement of trial. There is no finding to that effect in the impugned order of the Court below and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff had relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs. Roop Rani Mehra and others (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 132).

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 13 and 14, would contend that inadvertently, the proposed amendment, as indicated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the subject interlocutory application, i.e., “thus, the defendant No.13 & 14 through their father who is the defendant No.11, have perfected their title even by virtue of adverse possession and also by prescription, since they are enjoying continuous and long possession”, was omitted in the written statement and immediately on noticing the same, the said amendment was sought. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff, if the written statement is amended as sought for. The Court below had rightly dealt with this aspect and ultimately, allowed the subject interlocutory application. In an application to amend the written statement, the Court shall not go into technicalities and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 13 & 14 had relied on the same decision which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, i.e., Mohinder Kumar Mehra’s case supra.

5. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is as follows :

“Whether the order, dated 29.04.2019, passed in I.A.No.267 of 2019 in O.S.No.27 of 2013, by the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is liable to be set aside?”

Point :

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff relied on Mohinder Kumar Mehra’s case supra, wherein, the Apex Court, held as follows:

17. Although Order VI Rule 17 permits amendment in the pleadings “at any stage of the proceedings”, but a limitation has been engrafted by means of Proviso to the fact that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced. Reserving the Court’s jurisdiction to order for permitting the party to amend pleading on being satisfied that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In a suit when trial commences? Order XVIII of the C.P.C. deal with “Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses”. Issues are framed under Order XIV. At the first hearing of the suit, the Court after reading the plaint and written statement and after examination under Rule 1 of Order XIV is to frame issues. Order XV deals with “Disposal of the