ORDER

This petition by the respondents 32, 33 & 34 (the LRs of defendant No.10) in FDP No.25015/2017 on the file of the XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore is directed against the impugned order dated 23.01.2024 whereby the application I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the respondents 32, 33 & 34 (the LRs of defendant No.10) under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC seeking permission to amend the statement of objections (written statement) was rejected by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents herein instituted the suit in O.S.No.15341/2009 before the Trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents- plaintiffs, preferred an appeal in RFA No.1420/2012 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2016.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein and other defendants approached the Apex Court in SLP.No.3766/2016 which was dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2016. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted the final decree proceedings in FDP No.25015/2017 to enforce and implement the said preliminary decree passed by this Court which was confirmed by the Apex Court. The petitioners herein filed their statement of objections to the said Final Decree Petition. During the pendency of the Final Decree Proceedings, the petitioners herein filed the instant application I.A.No.1/24 seeking amendment of their statement of objections (written statement). The said application having been opposed by the respondents-plaintiffs, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioners are unnecessarily protracting the matter since the preliminary decree had attained finality by the judgment of the Apex Court in SLP.No.3766/2016 referred to supra. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the I.A.No.1/24 in FDP No.25015/2017, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the order dated 16.08.2019 passed by this Court in review petition (RP No.241/2019) in order to contend that in the light of the liberty reserved in favour of the petitioners by this Court, petitioners were entitled to file the instant application seeking amendment to their statement of objections (written statement). It is also submitted that the proposed amendment does not in any way change or alter the nature or character of the proceedings and no prejudice to be caused to the respondents-plaintiffs if the amendment was allowed. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that the preliminary decree passed by this Court in RFA No.1420/2012 dated 10.03.2016 had attained finality having been confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP.No.3766/2016 dated 30.06.2016. In this context it is submitted that having suffered the aforesaid preliminary decree, it is not open for the petitioners to seek amendment by incorporating events and facts prior to institution of the suit itself and as such, there is no merit in the application seeking amendment by the petitioners which was rightly rejected by the Trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the Review Petition was dismissed as withdrawn and merely because liberty was granted in favour of the petitioners to file application claiming their right, the said liberty cannot be misconstrued by the petitioners seeking to amend th