THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3090 of 2011 August 27, 2011 Between: B.Satyavathi, W/o.Markandeyulu ... Petitioner And Gavireddy Apparao, S/o.Chinnayya And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3090 of 2011 ORDER: The fifth defendant in O.S.No.40 of 2007 filed by the respondents 1 to 4 (hereafter, the plaintiffs) for partition, filed the instant civil revision petition against the order in I.A.No.2527 of 2010 dated 08.3.2011 passed by the Court of the Family Judge-cum-Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for partition of 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property and separate possession. They alleged that one Paradesamma, mother of the first plaintiff and grandmother of the plaintiffs 2 to 4, purchased the suit schedule property in a Court auction in E.P.No.266 of 1944 in O.S.No.103 of 1936 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Rajahmundry and that item No.1 of the suit schedule property admeasures 145 Sq.yards. However, in the plaint, the suit number was wrongly shown as O.S. No.1013 of 1996 and the extent was shown as 186.33 Sq.yards. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.2527 of 2010 in O.S.No.40 of 2007 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking permission to amend the number of 1936 suit, to mention the correct area of item No.1 of the suit schedule property and also to add paragraph 13-A to the effect that the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule should be taken into consideration and whatever extent therein should be considered for the purpose of partition. The fifth defendant opposed the application and filed a counter affidavit. The second defendant adopted the same but the other defendants remained ex parte. The learned Trial Judge, after referring to four decisions of the Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that having regard to the sale certificate–Ex.A.29, the amendments ‘a’ and ‘b’ can be allowed. The application was, accordingly, ordered. In this civil revision petition, the Counsel for the petitioner lays emphasis on the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC and contends that unless the Court below records a finding that in spite of due diligence the plaintiffs could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, the exercise of jurisdiction is improper. The law in relation to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which empowers the Court to permit amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings is well settled. In Revajeetu Builders & Developers v Narayanaswamy and sons[1], the Supreme Court revisited the subject. After reviewing leading decisions on the point, the following observations are made. Whether amendment is necessary to decide real controversy 58. The first condition which must be satisfied before the amendment can be allowed by the court is whether such amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. If that condition is not satisfied, the amendment cannot be allowed. This is the basic test which should govern the courts' discretion in grant or refusal of the amendment. No prejudice or injustice to other party 59. The other important condition which should govern the discretion of the court is the potentiality of prejudice or injustice which is likely to be caused to the other side. Ordinarily, if the other side is compensated by costs, then there is no injustice but in practice hardly any court grants actual costs to the opposite side. The courts have very wide discretion in the matter of amendment of pleadings but court's powers must be exercised judiciously and with great care. Costs 61. The courts have consistently laid down that for unnecessary delay and inconvenience, the opposite party must be compensated with costs. The imposition of costs is an important judicial exercise particularly when the courts deal with the cases of amendment. The costs cannot and should not be imposed arbitrarily. In our view, the following parameters must be taken into consideration while imposing the costs. These factors are illustrative in nature and not exhaustive: (i) At what stage the amendment was sought. (ii) While imposing the costs, it should be taken into consideration whether the amendment has been sought at a pre-trial or post-trial stage. (iii) The financial benefit derived by one party at the cost of other party should be properly calculated in terms of money and the costs be awarded accordingly. (iv) The imposition of costs should not be symbolic but realistic. (v) The delay and inconvenience caused to the opposite side must be clearly evaluated in terms of additional and extra court hearings compelling the opposite party to bear the extra costs. (vi) In case of appeal to higher courts, the victim of the amendment is compelled to bear considerable additional costs. All these aspects must be carefully taken into consideration while awarding the costs. 62. The purpose of imposing costs is to: (a) discourage mala fide amendments designed to delay the legal proceedings; (b) compensate the other party for the delay and the inconvenience caused; (c) compensate the other party for avoidable expenses on the litigation which had to be incurred by the opposite party for opposing the amendment; and (d) to send a clear message that the parties have to be careful while drafting the original pleadings. Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments 63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that as per Ex.A29 sale certificate, the suit number is O.S.No.103 of 1936 in which the property was auctioned and Paradesamma purchased 145 Sq. yards. Therefore, even if it is not properly mentioned in the original plaint, allowing an amendment by the Court below would not in any way cause prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) August 27, 2011 YS [1] (2009) 10 SCC 84