Order 6 Rule 17 proviso restricting post-trial plaint amendment applies to plaintiffs, not defendants in partition suits to prevent multiplicity.

ORDER

The 2nd defendant is the Civil Revision Petitioner. O.S.No.39 of

2014 is a suit for partition and separate possession. It also seeks for a declaration that the sale agreement executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant on 08.06.2002 in Document No.1208 of 2012 is not binding on the plaintiffs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the property was an ancestral property, inherited by one, Chinnalagan. He is the husband of the plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs 2 to 5 and defendants 2 and 3. Chinnalagan died on 12.12.1988 leaving behind the aforesaid parties as his legal heirs. They pleaded that, each of the heirs are entitled to 1/7^th share in the properties left behind by Chinnalagan.

3. They further pleaded that while so, the 2nd defendant in collusion with the 1^st defendant had prepared certain documents on the basis of which, the revenue records were also mutated in his name. The plaintiffs came to know that, on the strength of these documents, the 1^st defendant is attempting to make a claim. As they are not parties to the documents, they sought a declaration that the agreement is not binding on them. They further pointed out that, the 1^st defendant had filed a suit in O.s.No.34 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge at Madurai, for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 06.07.2002 and obtained a decree on 14.09.2012. Aggrieved by the said decree, the plaintiffs and the 2^nd defendant had preferred a regular appeal before the VI Additional District Judge at Madurai in A.S.No.6 of 2013. On these several pleas, they sought the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Summons were served on the first defendant. The first defendant also filed a detailed written statement. So did the 2^nd defendant. The 2nd defendant thereafter, filed an application to amend the plaint to include certain properties. This application was received by the learned V Additional District Judge, as I.A.No.8 of 2025.

5. He ordered notice in the application. The plaintiffs filed a counter, not seriously opposing the application. The 1^st defendant alone filed a detailed counter, opposing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

6. According to her, the 2nd defendant had already filed a suit in O.S.No.113 of 2015 pending on the file of the very same Court and the plaint in that suit had been marked as Ex.B6. The properties that were left out in this suit were included in that suit. In addition, the 1st defendant invoked the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 and pleaded that, as the trial had commenced, the 2nd defendant must not be permitted to amend the plaint.

She further pointed out that P.W.1 had been examined on 24.06.2015 and the application is only meant to drag on the proceedings.

7. On the basis of affidavit and counter, the learned Trial Judge took up the application for disposal. Solely relying upon the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application. In passing, he referred to the fact that O.S.No.113 of 2015 is also pending.

Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

8. Heard Mr.M.Rajasekar, for the petitioner and Mr.J.Kiruthin, representing Mr.M.Gurudass, for respondents 1 to 4.

9. The learned counsel reiterated the contentions they placed before the trial Court.

10. Here is a suit for partition and separate possession. A relief of declaration that the agreement entered into between the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs has also been sought for. It is the specific case of the 2^nd defendant that, certain properties had been left out by the plaintiffs at the time of presentation of the plaint. The plaintiffs had not