THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3760 of 2011 ORDER The petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 6 filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 09.08.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District, in allowing I.A.No.703 of 2011 in O.S.No.157 of 2005 filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C seeking amendment of the plaint. Respondent No.1 herein filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule property and the matter was coming up for the evidence of the defendants. At that stage, defendant No.1 died on 16.04.2011. In view of the same, and as all the legal representatives were already on record, he filed the above Interlocutory Application seeking amendment of the plaint. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 to 6 contested the application stating that when the plaintiff admitted that defendant No.1 executed Will dated 24.06.2005, he cannot take a contrary view that defendant No.1 died intestate. Further, in the suit, the plaintiff pleaded that the schedule properties are liable for portion and he is entitled to the share by pleading that the said Will executed by his father is null and void. The Court below by the impugned order allowed the Interlocutory Application by permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint holding that due to the death of defendant No.1, necessarily the plaint has to be amended. It is now well-settled that the courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bona fide one (See Usha Balashaheb Swami v. Kiran Appaso Swami[1]). In the instant case, the plaintiff has sought for partition of the suit schedule property and he has taken a plea that the Will deed executed by his father is null and void, and therefore, he is entitled to amend the plaint. Once the lower Court exercised the discretion and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint, this Court, normally, would not interfere with such discretion exercised by lower Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file their additional written statement by taking all the pleas available to them. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 14.10.2011 va [1] AIR 2007 SC 1663