THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.1287/2009 Dt.25-3-2011 Machineni Ramachandra Rao ..Petitioner V. 1. Vadlamudi Sunitha and others. ..Respondents The court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.1287/2009 Oral Order This revision by the plaintiff under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is filed to revise the orders dt. 1-12-2008 passed in IA No.649/2003 in OS No.261/1998 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, whereunder petition filed by the fifth defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 and Sec.151 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement was allowed. In a suit filed for partition, the fifth defendant filed the written statement contending that her uncle ie., plaintiff and another uncle ie., 1st defendant executed oral gift deeds in respect of an extent of Ac.0- 90 cents each on 16-11-1985 in her favour and they delivered the possession of the said property and she took possession accepting the gift and the said gift was acted upon. It was further contended that herself, her father, 2nd defendant, and 4th defendant got executed a partition deed on 16-11-1985 and an extent of Ac.0-92 cents out of plaint schedule property was allotted to the share of this defendant, besides some other properties, which she took delivery of the said Ac.0-92 cents along with Ac.1-80 cents gifted to her by the plaintiff and the first defendant and she (fifth defendant) obtained title books and pattadar passbooks from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapulapadu. The fifth defendant filed the above IA for amendment of written statement by adding para 6(a) and 6(b), whereunder it was stated that the suit for partition without seeking relief of recovery of possession against the defendants is not maintainable and claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as she has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property continuously till the date of suit. The trial court, by the impugned order, allowed the petition. In fact, the plea taken by the defendant No.5 is not the first time; she has already pleaded the same but by elaborating the same, she sought amendment of the written statement by way of adding paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b). Considering the similar facts, the Supreme Court in USHA BALASHAHEB SWAMI V. KIRAN APPASO SWAMI (2007 AIR SCW 2545) held that “in the case of amendment of a written statement, the courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment than that of a plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case….. In allowing the amendment of the written statement a liberal approach is a general view when admittedly in the event of allowing the amendment the other party can be compensated in money. Technicality of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties.” Normally, the High court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, should not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court in allowing amendments of the written statement. For the reasons aforementioned, no infirmity is discernible in the order passed by the trial court in allowing amendment of the written statement warranting interference The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.25-3-2011 kmr