Allowing amendments in pleadings is crucial to achieve substantial justice, provided it does not disadvantage the opposing party.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Quash the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 in O.S.No.198/2013 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at srinivasapur on interim application (I.A.No.6) u/o VI Rule 17 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC as found at Annexure-A and consequently to allow the interim application (I.A.No.6) under filed by the petitioner/plaintiff u/o VI Rule 7 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC in O.S.No.198 of 2013 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at srinivasapur.

b) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Sri.Srinath P., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the respondents and in the said suit, he has filed an application in I.A.No.6 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint. It is submitted that the amendment sought is to insert certain factual aspects which have taken place after filing of the suit. It is further submitted that after the death of the father of the petitioner, khata of 'B' schedule property has been incorporated by the Grama Panchayat in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner intends to incorporate the said aspect in the plaint;

however, the trial Court, without appreciating the same, only on the ground that the application was filed belatedly, rejected the said application. It is also submitted that bringing such an amendment would not change the nature of the suit nor cause any prejudice to the other side. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Sri.S.N.Sameer, learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the proposed amendment, though, may not change the nature of the suit, but it is not required to be brought on record as it has no bearing on adjudicating the suit between the parties. It is submitted that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the application was filed belatedly and rejected the same and the said order does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 5 and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

5. Petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.198/2013 against the respondents seeking prayer to declare that the petitioner's title over the suit schedule properties holding that they are ancestral properties, further to declare that the registered sale deed dated 05.08.1996 executed in the name of Nareppa and another sale deed dated 05.08.1981 in the name of T.C.Venkataswamy by the father of the petitioner-plaintiff are not binding on the petitioner to the extent of her share and other prayers.

6. The material on record indicates that the parties have adduced the evidence and thereafter an application in I.A.No.6 was filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to incorporate certain factual aspects. The proposed insertion in the plaint reads as follows:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT "1. Insert the following paragraph as

12a) That the plaintiff's name has been incorporated in the katha of "B" schedule property by grama panchyath Hodli on the basis of pavathi varas after the death of her father Erappareddy.

And the process of "E" suttu katha is also recommended in the name of the plaintiff before concerned authorities and it is authenticatedly being incorporated in her because the said property was fell to the share of her father through