HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.2683 OF 2010 DATE:09-07-2010 BETWEEN: Velaga Kamaraju & others …Petitioners AND Velaga Lakshmana Murthy (died) & others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.2683 OF 2010 ORDER: Plaintiffs filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 30.4.2010 whereby I.A.No.613 of 2010 in O.S.No.402 of 2005 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to amend the plaint has been dismissed. It is not disputed that the suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and to allot 4/9th share to the petitioners-plaintiffs and for other reliefs. Before starting the trial, the plaint was amended as per the orders in I.A.No.203 of 2008. Upon the death of first defendant, the third defendant was added as his legal heir. Subsequently, the trial of the suit was commenced, the trial was completed and the matter was posted for arguments on 4.3.2010. At that stage, the impugned I.A. was filed seeking amendment of the plaint schedule property i.e. item Nos.2 to 5 stating that while preparing the arguments, the advocate of the petitioners-plaintiffs noticed that the extent in item No.2 was wrongly noted as Ac.0.25 cents instead of Ac.1.11 cents; so also in item No.5 the survey number was wrongly mentioned as 563 instead of 133/1 for the extent of Ac.0.93 cents and 133/2 for the extent of Ac.1.21 cents, which comes to Ac.2.14 cents in total. On noticing the said mistake, the present application is filed to amend the plaint with necessary amendments. The proviso inserted to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. prohibits allowing an application filed for amendment of pleadings after 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. When the petitioners herein failed to establish that such an amendment could not be taken out in spite of due diligence, the same cannot be ordered to be amended. Further by virtue of the amendment sought to be made, though the nature of the suit is not changed, but the petitioners got filed the document named as gift deed allegedly executed by the second defendant in favour of his daughter, dated 29.7.1999, in which, the property now sought to be amended was included and therefore, as rightly observed by the lower Court the rights of the parties will be effected as the document is prior to filing of the suit. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 09, 2010 Tsr.