ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants 1 to 5, D8 to D9 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned XII Additional District Judge – cum – Judge, Family Court, Guntur, in I.A.No.185 of 2016 in O.S.No.224 of 2011 wherein and whereby learned trial Judge allowed the petition filed by R1/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (in short „CPC‟) seeking amendment of plaint on the ground that trial of the suit is not yet commenced.

2. The present revision petition is filed by defendants 1 to 5, 8 and 9 only showing D6, D7, D10 to D14 as R3 to R8. During the pendency of revision petition, petitioner No.1, petitioner No.3 died and their legal representatives were brought on record as P8 to P11. 2nd respondent also died, and respondents 9 and 10 were added as his legal representatives.

3. The suit is filed by first respondent against defendants seeking relief of cancellation of part of registered partition deed and lease deed and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties wherein she filed her chief-examination affidavit as P.W.1 and then as D7 died, his legal representatives were brought on record by amending the plaint and matter was coming up for hearing on issues. At that time, after perusing contents of written statement filed by the defendants, R1/plaintiff found in page – 13 of written statement that they have taken a plea that the suit as framed is not maintainable and the grounds urged for cancellation of document are not valid. R1/plaintiff submits that she has stated in her plaint at page No.5 that D1 to D4 colluded together and to disobey the findings of the Court, suppressing real facts, executed the partition deed dated 19.05.2011 with false recitals and pleaded that the said document is not valid and binding on her. It is the contention of R1 that suppressing the real facts, defendants have executed lease deed dated 06.07.2011 with false recitals with an intention to grab item No.2 of plaint schedule properties, which document is illegal and void and not binding on her. At first instance, she sought for cancellation of part of the partition deed dated 19.05.2011 and cancellation of lease deed dated 06.07.2011 and recovery of possession. Now, she intended to seek relief of declaration that part of registered partition deed dated 19.05.2011 and lease deed dated 06.07.2011 is void and not binding on her in respect of plaint schedule properties. She also submits that proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit and cause of action. She prays to amend the plaint.

4. The 4th petitioner/4th respondent/D4 filed counter before the trial Court denying the averments in the affidavit of R1/plaintiff, which is adopted by defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14. It is the contention of the petitioner No.4/ respondent No.4/Defendant No.4 that R1/plaintiff is habituated to file applications for amendment as previously she filed I.A.No.1032 of 2014 to strike out relief of injunction and that was allowed on 29.12.2014, which shows that she already scrutinized the entire contents of the plaint and thought it fit to delete the relief of injunction. She alleged that petitioner is pretending that due to her old age and ill-health, she could not point out earlier the proposed amendment, which is absolutely false and the relief already sought cannot be substituted and if R1 is so advised, remedy is elsewhere and R1 is trying to evade the Court fee. He prays to dismiss the petition.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge allowed the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that since the trial of the suit is not yet commenced and petitioner intended to amend the relief portion only.

6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned trial Judge, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners/some of the defendants stating that the orders passed by learned trial Judge are contrary to law, weigh