THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.785 OF 2007 17-06-2010 Between: V.Seshavatharam ..petitioner Vs. G.Anasuyamma and others …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.785 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. The suit is filed for partition of A, B and C schedule properties against the now deceased-1st defendant who is claimed to be the plaintiff’s maternal aunt. The revision petitioner filed I.A.895 of 2006 under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC to permit amendment of the plaint seeking substantive and wide ranging amendments to the plaint including alteration of the nature of the relationship between the defendant Nos.10 and 2 (who also subsequently died); to plead that defendant No.10 is not the legal heir of the defendant No.2 and was not necessary party to the suit but a mere proper party; and seeking a declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule properties. After the death of defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 who is her brother was brought on record. On the 2nd defendant’s demise, at the plaintiff/revision petitioner’s instance the defendant No.10 was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased-2nd defendant, in view of the plaintiff’s plea that defendant No.10 is the daughter of defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 is the husband of defendant defendant No.10; defendant No.4, the tenant of item 2 of the suit schedule property; defendant No.5 is the husband of defendant No.4; and defendant Nos.6 and 7 are purchasers (both suits) from the defendant No.1 of certain items of the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.895 of 2006 under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. In substance, the amendment is for eschewing the earlier plea and denying the status of defendant No.10 as the daughter of defendant No.2, specifically contending that she is not the daughter but a mere “foster” daughter and thus not the legal heir of defendant No.2; to seek additional claims of declaration and possession of the three items of the suit schedule properties; and for specifically contending that D-10 was not legal heir of the deceased defendant No.2 and therefore was not a necessary party but a mere proper party to the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.895 of 2006 except claiming that the deceased-defendant No.2 who is brother of deceased-D-1 had abandoned his lawfully wedded wife about 25 years ago; that there were no children through that marriage; that D-2 was addicted to vices and was a spendthrift and had brought a Muslim lady “Beeby” into concubinage along with her child – Defendant No.10 who is “ the foster daughter” of the 2nd defendant, there is no scintilla of pleading as to the basis on which the revision petitioner/plaintiff assumed and had pleaded earlier that the D-10 was the daughter of D-2 and therefore should be impleaded as such on the demise of D-2 nor is it pleaded when the true facts were discovered by the plaintiff/applicant, warranting the application for amendment of the plaint. Similarly, there is no pleading as to what occasioned the amendment regarding declaration of title and recovery of possession at that distance of time, namely, nine years after the institution of the suit. The court below in rejecting the application held that the suit was initially filed for partition of the suit schedule properties, whereas under the application, declaration and recovery of possession is sought and the cause of action is thus substantially and radically altered. Apart from the reasons recorded by the court below, in the absence of any reasons vouchsafed for seeking amendment at this distance of time, no relief could have been granted to the petitioner and has been rightly rejected by the court below. While the court has ample power to permit amendment of pleadings, the mere availability of power would be a justification for the exercise of it. Litigation is a solemn exercise and pleadings particularly when drafted and settled by professionals should reflect the solemnity. Casual, indolent or a reckless approach to litigation would undermine the very foundation of judicial administration. Casual pleadings which do not disclose reasons, particularly in the case of amendment of pleadings sought at inordinate delay, should be discouraged and rejected. This court discerns no infirmity in the exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 17th JUNE 2010 TSNR