Amendments to pleadings should be granted only if they do not prejudice the other party; if the amendment is sought after trial has commenced, due diligence must be established.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

The unsuccessful petitioner/plaintiff in I.A. No. 210 of 2025 in O.S. No. 42 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mancherial, filed this revision.

2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the Suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of Schedule A to G of property, claiming that all the properties are joint family properties inherited from his father. When the matter was posted for defendants' further evidence, plaintiff had taken out the subject I.A. under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to permit him amend the plaint by including Schedule-H property along all the consequential amendments.

3.1. The plea of plaintiff is that he obtained knowledge and possession of documents relating to land in Survey No 72/97/1 admeasuring Acs.5.00 situated at Naspur Revenue Village, Mancherial and the said property was originally held by his father and subsequently mutated in the name of his mother- Defendant No.1 and the said property was inadvertently omitted in the original plaint schedule and now he secured the relevant pahani records which reflects transfer of property in his mother’s name. Defendant No.1 contested the I.A. stating that plaintiff in his cross-examination as PW-1 on 05.12.2018 admitted that "our father owns Acs. 5-00 in Survey No. 72 of Naspur. As I do not want share in it, it is not included in the present suit schedule property, but it is mentioned in the plaint’. Therefore, it is not correct to say that plaintiff has come to know of the property recently. It is also contended that if the IA is allowed it leads to conducting de novo trial.

4. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties and considering the relevant provisions, dismissed the I.A. by order under Revision dated 17.10.2025 holding that there are no valid reasons to extend a helping hand to plaintiff in permitting him to amend the plaint. If the contentions of plaintiff are considered, the rights of defendants would be affected.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner / plaintiff Sri M.R.S. Srinivas submits that the trial Court failed to understand the scope and significance of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and its applicability. The contention of plaintiff regarding lack of custody of documents was not considered. According to learned counsel, plaint can be amended even after passing a preliminary decree in a suit for partition, as the suit for partition does not stand disposed of with passing of a preliminary decree alone, which is nothing but an interim decree. Suit for partition is for comprehensive relief to resolve a dispute in family, hence plaint can be amended at any stage of proceedings.

5.1. Learned counsel submits that procedural law should not defeat substantial rights of parties. If any joint family property is sold by one sharer, it is not binding upon the plaintiff. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment neither changes the nature of suit nor cause of action.

6. Heard Sri Rajasripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents - defendants.

7. Before considering the contentions of both the parties, it is relevant to extract Order VI Rule17 CPC. It reads thus:

“Amendment of pleadings. [Substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, Section 7, for rule 17 (w.e.f. 1.7.2002).) -The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on su