The petitioner, plaintiff in OS No.43/2015 on the file

of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, KGF

(Itinerate to Bangarpet), is before this Court under Article

227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated

07.08.2023 rejecting IA filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC

to amend the suit schedule to include 21 items of

properties.

Heard Sri Harisha A.S., learned counsel for the

petitioner/plaintiff and Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned

Senior Counsel for Sri N. Guruva Reddy, learned counsel

for the 1st respondent/caveator. Perused the writ petition

papers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the suit is for partition and separate possession of the suit

- 4 -

schedule properties. It is submitted that when the matter

was at the stage of final arguments it came to the

knowledge of the plaintiff that there are some more

properties of the joint family and the petitioner/plaintiff

filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to

include 21 items to the suit schedule. Learned counsel

would submit that the application was filed on 07.08.2023

and on the same day the Trial Court rejected the

application. Learned counsel would submit that in a suit

for partition it is for the parties to include all the properties

of the joint family. Learned counsel would submit that the

Trial Court only on the ground that the High Court has

fixed time limit for disposal of the suit, failed to examine

the application as to whether the amendment was

necessary for disposal of the partition suit. Thus the

learned counsel would submit that the Trial Court

committed an error in dismissing the application for

amendment.

Learned

counsel

would

submit

that

amendment to the schedule to plaint is very much

necessary for proper disposal of the suit.

- 5 -

Per contra, Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior

Counsel for the 1st respondent/2nd defendant submits

that there is no bonafide in application filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the suit schedule.

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the present

application for amendment to the suit schedule is 5th

application and on earlier four occasions the Trial Court

allowed

the

amendment

applications

filed

by

the

petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of suit schedule to

include more than 47 items. Learned Senior Counsel would

submit that the first respondent herein was before this

Court in Writ Petition No.30387/2018 challenging the order

permitting amendment on an earlier occasion. While

disposing of the said writ petition by order dated

24.06.2019 this Court directed the Trial Court to dispose

off the suit, within outer limit of 12 months, but

subsequently the time was extended, but till date the suit

is not disposed of, since the petitioner is not co-operating

for disposal of the suit. Further learned Senior Counsel

- 6 -

would submit that the 1^st respondent/2^nd defendant has

undertaken that till disposal of the suit, he would not

alienate the schedule properties. Therefore, he prays for

early disposal of the suit.

In the above facts and circumstances, the point that

arises for my consideration is as to

"Whether the Trial Court is justified in rejecting

the 5th amendment application filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff to include 21 items to the

suit schedule."

My answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative'. The

Trial Court is justified in rejecting the amendment

application of the petitioner/plaintiff to include certain

items of properties under impugned order for the following

reasons:

6.

The suit of the petitioner/plaintiff herein is for

partition and separate possession. The suit was filed on

10.06.2015 and the plaint included 12 items of the

- 7 -

properties. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff is said to

have filed amendment application to include 7 items of

properties to the suit plaint. The said application was

allowed by order dated 04.01.2016. Thereafter, the

petitioner/plaintiff

filed

one

more

application

for

amendment under Order