Amendments to plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are not permissible post-trial commencement without due diligence, as it may cause prejudice to the opposing party.

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri J.Narender, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This Civil Revision petition is filed challenging the propriety and legality of the orders dated 05.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.217 of 2023 in O.S.No.144 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Jangaon whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the lower Court.

4. The plaintiffs filed the suit against Defendant Nos.1 to 13 for partition and separate possession of their two thirds share out of 1/4^th share each to be allotted to defendant Nos.1 and 2, out of the plaint schedule property.

5. The trial of the suit commenced and the plaintiffs adduced their evidence. Now the suit is coming up for the evidence of the defendants. At this stage, the plaintiffs filed the petition seeking amendment of the plaint for including an extent of Ac.68.99 gts., in various survey numbers situated at Jangaon Village.

6. As can be seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of I.A.No.217 of 2023, the plea of the petitioners is that their great grandfather Cholleti Papi Reddy had four sons namely Cholleti Ram Reddy, Ch. Linga Reddy, Ch. Sathi Reddy and Ch. Narasimha Reddy (hereinafter referred to as Branch-I, II, III and IV respectively) and they belong to the family of “Cholleti” of Jangaon Village. Cholleti Ram Reddy died issueless in the year 1944 leaving behind his wife Manikyamma, as his legal heir and she adopted Anantha Reddy (grandfather of the petitioners) and who is the natural son of the said Cholleti Linga Reddy, under Registered Deed of Adoption dated 20.03.1986. The said Linga Reddy had ‘2’ wives by name Chinna Manikyamma and Lingamma.

The said Linga Reddy through his first wife had four children namely Ch.Ananth Reddy (grandfather), Anasuya, Vimala and Prameela. Both Anasuya and Vimala died issueless. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of the said Anantha Reddy while defendant Nos.3 and 4 are his wife and son respectively. The said Prameela was married to Pasunuri Mohan Reddy and Defendant No.5 is the son while Defendant Nos.7 to 9 are the daughters of the said Pasunuri Mohan Reddy and Pramila. Defendant No.4 was given in marriage to Pasunuri Ram Reddy and Defendant Nos.11 and 12 are their son and daughter respectively. Their specific plea is that the grandfather of the petitioners was entitled to get share not only from the family of adoptive parents (Branch-I) but also from the family of natural parents (Branch-II). According to them in the month of January 2023, they came to know about O.S.No.64 of 1985 which was filed for partition by Yashoda Devi and her adopted daughter Aruna (belonging to Branch-IV) against the Members of Branches-I, II and III in respect of the lands measuring Ac.4.33 gts., in Sy.No.461/4 and 32 guntas in Sy.No.461/5 and an house situated at Jangaon and in that suit preliminary decree for half share of the plaintiffs was passed and A.S.No.19 of 1988 preferred against the trial Court judgment dated 23.01.1988 passed in O.S.No.64 of 1985. Their case is in the above suit the said Pasunuri Mohan Reddy being a son-in-law of Linga Reddy and Ch.Lingamma gave a declaration and the said Mohan Reddy claimed Ac.44.49 gts., in various survey numbers and that their grandfather Cholleti Anantha Reddy was entitled for a share in the properties of Branches I and II and therefore, the proposed amendment for inclusion of the properties become necessary.

7. The respondents 2 and 10 filed separate counters firmly opposing the proposed amendment. Respondent No.2 stated that he filed written statement long back and that the proposed amendment is post trial Amendment sought for after 12 years and so it cannot be allowed.

8. Respondent No.10 in his counter stat