ORDER:

This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 29.03.2019, in I.A.No.347 of 2019 in O.S.No. 487 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C seeking relief to amend the plaint.

2. Heard Mr. Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner/ plaintiff submitted that while preparing the arguments, it came to light that the 2nd respondent has obtained a regular Registered Gift Deed on 28.04.2012 from his mother and after death of his mother, the 2nd defendant became absolute owner of the property, hence disputing the said Gift Deed.

Hence an application is filed to amend the plaint.

4. The respondents filed counter before the trial court denying material allegations and contended that if the amendment is allowed the very basic structure of the suit will be changed. Therefore if the petitioner has any grievance, he can take steps to file fresh suit. It is further contended that after closing the evidence on both the sides and at the stage of arguments, the proposed amendment cannot be permitted and strongly opposed to allow the application.

5. Upon considering the submissions of both the counsel, the trial court dismissed the application. Assailing the same, the present C.R.P came to be filed.

4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the petition and placed on record the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of “Institute of Education, Ramachandrapuram Vs. Ramachandrapuram Municipality and Others”1 wherein learned Single Judge held as follows:

“4….

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the above principles were illustrative and not exhaustive. In Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh MANU/SC/7310/2008: (2008) 5 SCC 117, the Supreme Court, taking notice of the fact that „due diligence‟ has not been defined in CPC, referred to the dictionary meaning of „diligence‟ which is to the effect that it means careful and persistent application or effort or a continual effort to accomplish something; care; caution; the attention and care required from a person in a given situation, and observed that „ due diligence‟ means the diligence reasonably expected from and ordinarily exercised by a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation. Reference was also made to „Words and Phrases‟ by Drain-Dyspnea (Permanent Edition 13-A) wherein „due diligence‟ was defined in

1 MANU/AP/3451/2013 = C.R.P.3590 OF 2012, dt. 14.11.2013 law to mean doing everything reasonable and not everything possible. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, therefore, concluded that „due diligence‟ would mean reasonable diligence and would mean such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs.

5. Further, it is very specific that as per Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C, which reproduced hereunder:

“Amendment of Pleadings:- “The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could have raised the matter before the commencement of trial”.

6. In the instant case, the petitioner could not raised the issue before commencement of trial, but the 2nd respondent clearly mentioned in her written statement about the execution of Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 28.04.2012 i.e Ex.B5. Further the trial court observed that during the course of trial and also cross examined the witnesses on the point of execution of Ex.B5. Therefore there is no diligence on par