Amendment of pleadings should be allowed liberally if it does not change the nature of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice; delay alone is not a sufficient ground for rejection, especially in partition suits requiring comprehensive adjudication.

The Court made the following order:

Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 11.01.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.103 of 2023 in Original Suit No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners herein are plaintiffs and respondents herein are defendants in O.S.110 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

The petitioners herein/plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.110 of 2016 seeking partition and delivery of separate vacant possession of the plaintiffs’ 1/4^th share in the half of the share of her father in the plaint schedule property with metes and bounds and for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of division the property. To the said suit, the respondents/defendants filed their written statement and contested the suit. Pursuant to the filing of written statement, the petitioners filed I.A.No.103 of 2023 praying the Court to amend the plaint by inserting the proposed amendment after paragraph No. 3 to be numbered as paragraph No.3A. In the said Interlocutory Application, the respondents/defendant Nos.8 to 12 and respondents Nos.13 to 31 filed their respective counters, contending that the present petition was filed only to protract the proceedings and that it was filed after a lapse of seven years. They further contended that the proposed amendment completely deviates from the main pleadings of the plaint and the proposed amendment would change and deviate the nature of the main suit and it is devoid of merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Upon hearing the parties, the Court below, vide order dated 11.01.2024, dismissed the said petition holding that there was no cause of action for the petitioner to file the present petition. The Court further held that the contention of the petitioner that he came to know about the partition deed dated 08.11.2004 only after defendant Nos.9 to 12 filed their written statement in April 2023 is not correct, as the original partition deed had already been filed by defendant No.7 way back in the year 2017. The suit was filed in the year 2016 and defendant No.7 filed his written statement in the year 2017 itself, thereby bringing to the notice of the petitioner the existence of the registered partition deed and accordingly concluded that the petition is misconceived. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Murali Lincoln, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 11 and Sri J.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.13 to 31.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of Interlocutory Application, contended that the petitioner herein filed the interlocutory application to insert a particular fact which was very much required for better adjudication of the suit, as the respondents/defendant Nos.8 to 11 denied the execution of the partition deed. He further contended that the trial Court failed to see that the petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2, who has been arrayed as plaintiff pursuant to the orders dated 18.08.2021 passed in Interlocutory Application No.27 of 2021, has preferred the impugned Interlocution Application only after realizing that one L.Sunkanna has played fraud on the other parties and became a party to the partition deed dated 08.11.2004, and erroneously dismissed the Application on the ground of delay. He further contended that if the said paragraph is inserted, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corpora