O R D E R

The plaintiff who is not successful in getting the approval of the trial Court, for amendment of plaint filed, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.175 of 2009, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Perundurai has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner has filed a suit for partition against the respondents/defendants of the schedule of properties and to allot one half of the share to the petitioner and the remaining half share to the respondents/defendants. The respondents have filed written statements, issues have been settled, plaintiff's evidence was completed, defendants evidence was also completed and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner has moved an application, in I.A.No.3 of 2022, seeking to amend the plaint and the same was declined by the trial Court.

3. Heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Sundaravadhanam, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Perused the entire materials available on record.

5. The petitioner who has originally filed a suit for partition of the schedule of property alleging that the petitioner and respondents are entitled for half of the share each, intend to amend the plaint claiming that he is the exclusive owner of the plaint schedule, giving a go by to his earlier admission, that the respondents are entitled for half of the share.

6. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as under:-

Amendment of pleadings – The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

7. The provisio to the above provision permitting the parties to amend the pleadings is that the amendment shall not be entertained, once the trial has commenced. In the case on hand, not only trial has commenced, but the trial has also concluded.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he has been seeking the amendment of plaint, as the petitioner got the orders from the District Revenue Officer, Erode and consequential order of Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar, wherein certain amendments in the revenue records are made to the effect that he is the owner in respect of the schedule of property. Orders which the petitioner/plaintiff stated to have been obtained are pertaining to the years 2017 – 2020 which are subsequently to the filing of the suit. However, the question to be seen is that the revenue records will not decide the tile of a person over the specific schedule of property. The petitioner has not filed a suit for declaration of title. The petitioner has sought for partitioning of the schedule of properties and allotting half of the share. Therefore, when both the petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/defendants are claiming their rights, therefore, their ancestral revenue records will not make the petitioner entitle in respect of entire schedule of property. Therefore, prior to filing of the suit itself, the petitioner should have make up his mind as to whether he is entitled for half of the share or more than that. In fact, if he is entitled for entire extent, there is no need for filing of a suit for partition. He is instructed to file a suit for declaration that he is the exclusive owner of entire schedule of property. The very fact that he has filed a suit for partition shows that the respondents have also got some share in the schedule of property. Now, by way of proposed amendment, the petitioner wanted to take away the right of the