THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.5959 OF 2008 DATE: 11-2-2010 Between: 1. Dheergasi Ramireddy and another … Petitioners and Dheergasi Kasulamma … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.5959 OF 2008 ORDER: The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the Suit, and the respondents in the interlocutory application which is under challenge in these revision proceedings. The respondent – plaintiff filed an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to permit her to delete the words ‘ancestral’ and substitute the word ‘self-acquired’ by way of an amendment to the plaint. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A, the respondent-plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of her husband; he had purchased these properties with the income derived from his own efforts and exertions but it was by mistake wrongly mentioned in the plaint as ‘ancestral’ instead of ‘self-acquired’. In the counter affidavit, filed by the petitioners herein before the Court below, the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. were denied. The petitioners herein contended that the suit schedule property was ancestral property purchased out of joint family income. The court below noted that the suit was filed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession of the plaint schedule property; the suit was posted for trial; the plaintiff had filed her affidavit in chief and was yet to be cross-examined; the amendment sought was only to substitute the word ‘ancestral’ with the words ‘self-acquired’; amendment of pleading had to be liberally considered to avoid multiplicity of litigation; the merits and demerits of the Suit and the stand taken in the proposed amendment could only be gone into at the time of trial and was not required to be tested at that stage; and amendment of the plaint should be permitted. Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narasu, learned counsel for the petitioners, would reiterate the contentions raised before the court below and contend that the plaintiff could not be permitted to retract an admission that the suit schedule properties were ‘ancestral’ properties. What has been stated in the plaint is only a plea which is required to be substantiated by letting in evidence during the course of trial. The Court below exercised its discretion to permit amendment of the plaint on the ground that the trial of the suit had yet to commence; only an affidavit in lieu of chief examination of P.W.1 had been filed and she had not even been cross-examined; and amendment of pleadings should be liberally granted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Exercise of discretion by the court below cannot be said to have resulted in manifest injustice nor does it suffer from such patent illegality or perversity as to necessitate interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below. The C.R.P. fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. __________ 11-2-2010 asp