ORDER

The plaintiff in O.S. No.6/2013 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Periyapatna, (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court') has filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 14.02.2020 by which an application (I.A. No.XXIV) filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') was rejected.

2. The suit in O.S. No.6/2013 was filed for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit schedule properties and for declaration that the sale deeds dated 07.03.2009 and 08.07.2004 executed in favour of the defendant Nos.5 and 6 in respect of suit item Nos.5 and 6 properties were null and void and were not binding on him.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants.

4. At the fag end of the proceedings, the plaintiff filed an application (I.A. No.XXIV) under order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend and rectify a superficial error in the pleadings and in the prayer portion of the plaint.

5. This application was opposed by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 contending that the application is filed only to protract the proceedings.

6. The Trial Court heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for defendants and in terms of the impugned order, rejected the application (I.A. No.XXIV) primarily on the ground that the suit was filed asserting that the suit properties were ancestral properties but by way of an amendment, the plaintiff desired to describe it as "joint family coparcenary properties" of him and his father. The plaintiff initially sought for a declaration that the sale deeds dated 07.03.2009 and 08.07.2004 executed in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 were null and void but now desired to amend the prayer and sought for a declaration that the sale deeds did not bind him. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the plaintiff is trying to take a new stand which could change the nature of the suit. It also held that the application was filed at a belated stage and therefore, allowing the amendment would certainly place the defendants at a disadvantageous position and rejected the same.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed this petition.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff / petitioner contended that all the plaintiff intended to do was to properly describe the suit schedule properties and also seek for the appropriate prayer. He contended that the evidence of the parties is already adduced and the Trial Court could certainly decide the case based on available evidence. He submitted that by describing the suit properties as joint family properties of the plaintiff and his father, there would neither be a change in the cause of action nor in the nature of the suit schedule properties and no hardship would be caused to the defendants. He further contended that even if the sale deeds dated 07.03.2009 and 08.07.2004 are interfered with, they would only be to the extent of the plaintiff's share and nothing beyond. He therefore contends that the basis on which the Trial Court has rejected the application (I.A. No.XXIV) is utterly unjustified and prays that the application be allowed. He further submits that by allowing the application, no fresh issues would arise for consideration and that the plaintiff would not lead any fresh evidence.

9. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to

3 / respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the other hand contended that the application (I.A. No.XXIV) is filed at a belated stage to protract the proceedings and therefore, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application.

10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3 / respondent Nos.1 to 3.

11. It is no doubt true that an application for amendment of the pleadings and prayer in the plaint cannot be allowed for the mere asking and the party seeking amendment has to establish that the application was bona fide and not intended to harass the defendants. At th