ORDER:

This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the orders, dated 29.11.2021, dismissing I.A.No.42 of 2020 in O.S.No.148 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to amend the plaint by deleting four items and adding two items in the plaint schedule of the property.

2. Heard Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants. The proposed amendments are shown below:

In item No.3 deletion portion of plaint schedule:

In Sl.No.2 in Sy.No.191/9B an extent of Ac.1-20 cents In Sl.No.7 in Sy.No.253/2 an extent of Ac.0-93 cents In Sl.No.8 in Sy.No.252/3 an extent of Ac.1.01 cents In Sl.No.9 in Sy.No.253/4B an extent of Ac.0.44 cents ______________

Total deletion portion an extent of Ac: 3-58 cents ______________

Adding in plaint schedule item No.3:

In Sl.No.12 in Sy.No.192/5B an extent of Ac.0-51 cents In Sl.No.13 in Sy.No.204/7 an extent of Ac.0-03 cents Total adding portion an extent of Ac.0-54 cents

3. The contention of the petitioner/plaintiff is that when she was preparing to proceed with the case, she came to know that serial nos.2, 7, 8 & 9 of item No.3 of the plaint schedule property are in the name of third parties in the revenue records. Insofar as addition of two items of properties at Sl.Nos.12, 13 in item No.3, no reason is stated as to why they were earlier not included and are now being sought to be added.

4. The petition was opposed by the defendants by filing counter mainly stating that in the written statement itself, it was specifically pleaded that the suit schedule is incorrect and moreover, the written statement was filed on 30.11.2015. But, the petitioner intentionally kept quiet for four years and now after the evidence on the side of the petitioner was closed, this petition was filed at a belated stage with a view to stall the progress of the trial. It is also contended that the proposed amendment would change the court fee to be paid and the valuation of the suit and the whole trial would be upset. It is also contended that the petitioner has not taken due diligence in seeking the proposed amendment before commencement of the trial.

5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that no due diligence was exercised by the petitioner in seeking the reliefs as required in the amended proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

6. Before adverting to the contentions of both parties, the provision of Order VI Rule 17 CPC is noted herein below:

Order VI Rule 17:

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 in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

The proviso makes it clear that whenever an amendment is proposed, the petitioner has to satisfy that in spite of due diligence, the petitioner could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The reason stated by the petitioner is that while preparing for the case, she came to know that the properties now sought to be deleted were noted to be in the name of the third parties in the revenue records. Insofar as these properties are concerned, the same can be permitted as the petitioner herself admits that she has no case against those items of property and therefore, no adjudication needs to be made in respect of those items of property and consequently, no prejudice is likely to occur to the defendants.

7. Insofar as two items of properties which a