THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5753 of 2011 DT.30.12.2011 Between: Bayana Srimannarayan Dutt … Petitioner And Bayana Sobhanadri Arya andothers … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri Koppula Gopal Counsel for respondents: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5753 of 2011 ORDER :- This revision is filed questioning the order dated 25.11.2011 in I.A. No. 552 of 2011 in O.S. No. 196 of 2007 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC to amend the plaint. The revision petitioner is plaintiff, who filed a suit in O.S No. 196 of 2007 for partition of the plaint schedule property into four equal shares and to allot one share to the plaintiff with a direction to deliver the vacant possession of his share. After commencement of the trial, he filed an application in I.A. No. 552 of 2011 seeking amendment of the plaint to include the Bangalore tiled house in an extent of 97 sq yards, stated to have been purchased by his father in the year 1974. The Court below by the order under revision dated 25.11.2011 dismissed the said application on the ground that the trial was already commenced and there is no reason to presume that in spite of due diligence the petitioner could not have raised the issue before commencement of trial. Hence, the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record. In terms of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, 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. In the present case, the petitioner wants to amend the plaint to add the property which was admittedly purchased by his father on 2.11.1974 and absolutely there is no reason explained by the petitioner as to why he could not include the said property at the time of filing of the suit or before commencement of the trial. In such circumstances, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application and the said order cannot be said to be illegal or irregular warranting interference of this Court. The revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE:30.12.2011 tvk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5753 of 2011 DT.30.12.2011