THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1385 OF 2007 DATED: 24-06-2010 Between: Patha Naga Venkata Lalitha Sowmya. ..... PETITIONER And Patha Subbamma & 6 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 07-02-2006, in E.P.No.1083 of 2005 in O.S.No.122 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, wherein the said application, filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein-D1 & D2 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement, was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- to the plaintiff. 2. None appears for the petitioners and no representation is made on their behalf. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff. She filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property and separate possession of her share under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, claiming to be a Hindu. Defendants 1 & 2 contended that the plaintiff is a Christian and her mother was born Christian and her father-Patha Nageswara Rao converted into Christianity by taking Baptism before his marriage. Defendants also contended that after converting into Christianity the marriage of the plaintiff’s mother-P.W.2 with Nageswara Rao was solemnized as per the Christian Law, usage and custom in the church at Prakashnagar, Narasaraopet and that they lived as Christians. Plaintiff however denied the same and contended that she is a Hindu. Necessary issues were framed and the trial of the suit was in progress. 4. As seen from the impugned order, oral and documentary evidence was also adduced by the parties pertaining to the disputed aspect as to whether the plaintiff was a Christian or Hindu. Exs.B1 and 2 are the photographs pertaining to the marriage of the parents of the plaintiff and Ex.B3 is the certificate issued by the church regarding Baptism of Nageswara Rao on 26-06- 1981. 5. Defendants 1 & 2 filed I.A.No.1083 of 2005 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement by raising a specific plea regarding the religion of the plaintiff that she is a born Christian. In the affidavit, filed in support of the application, 1st defendant stated that on account of her being old and aged, more than 80 years, and due to inadvertence, the said plea could not be raised in the original written statement. Plaintiff opposed the said application. 6. It can be seen from the impugned order that though the formal plea as to the religion of the plaintiff was not specifically taken in the written statement, still the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced has thrown up the said aspect as a disputed question. 7. P.W.2-mother of the plaintiff was cross-examined at length regarding her religion and also the religion of her husband. It is seen from the impugned order that P.W.2 in her chief examination referred herself as Patha Theresa @ Sarojini, W/o Nageswara Rao and in the cross-examination she admitted that her study certificate and service records would show that she belongs to Roman Catholic Christian Mission. In view of the fact that the parties are at issue regarding the religion to which the plaintiff belongs and that the parties have in fact adduced oral and documentary evidence pertaining thereto, the trial Court thought it fit and proper to permit the defendants to amend the written statement by raising a specific plea regarding the religion of the plaintiff. The trial Court has also taken care to see that the delay in filing the application is duly compensated by payment of Rs.500/- to the plaintiff, while allowing the application. As rightly observed by the trial Court in the impugned order, the amendment in the written statement will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. It is not as if the defendant is raising any new plea or setting up a new case that would change or alter the nature of the suit. In fact, evidence is also adduced during the course of the trial, relating to the said plea and hence, the same would not spring any surprise on the plaintiff. In fact, for a just decision in the matter, it is necessary that the said plea, pertaining to the religion of the plaintiff, is also allowed to be raised specifically and a finding recorded therein, as the said the finding would have a bearing over the result of the suit. It is needless to point out that on the written statement being amended as requested, the plaintiff would be entitled to file a rejoinder to meet the additional plea raised in the written statement by way of amendment and the plaintiff would be at liberty to adduce such further evidence as may be considered necessary, pertaining to the said plea. The impugned order, allowing the proposed amendment of the written statement, does not therefore call for any interference of this Court as the same does not suffer from any irregularity or legal infirmity. There are no merits in this petition. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 20-04-2007 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th June, 2010. Tsy