THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5747 of 2010 Date of Order:02.02.2011 Between: Gokana Vara Prasada Rao. ..Petitioner and Gokana Venkata Narasimha Rao. ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5747 of 2010 ORDER :- This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed to revise the order of the Principal Senior Civil judge, Vijayawada in allowing I.A.No.1264 of 2009 in O.S.No.838 of 2004, dated 10.11.2010, filed to amend the plaint in the prayer portion by substituting para 6(a)(1) to cancel the document No.2723/04, dated 02.08.2004. Admittedly, the suit itself is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property, which is an extent of 53.61 square yards along with the structures situated in old N.T.S.Nos.639, 649, 652, 654 & 662, Block No.13, Revenue Ward No.9 of Municipal Divisional No.24 of Arundalpet, Vijayawada bearing Door No.28-44-4 with specific boundaries. In para 4 of the plaint it is averred by the plaintiff that the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation authorities and the defendant colluded together and the Municipal Corporation authorities registered the schedule property in favour of the defendant on 14.07.2004 though the plaintiff objected for the same. It is further stated in para 6 of the plaint that after returning the suit, the plaintiff requested the defendant for amicable partition by way of registration, but the defendant did not accept for the same. After the registration of the schedule property i.e., on 30.07.2004 also when the plaintiff demanded the defendant for amicable partition, he did not express his willingness for partition. Hence, the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the trial commenced on filing the chief affidavit of P.W.1 on 29.06.2009 and when the matter is coming up for cross-examination, application for amendment of the pleadings cannot be filed and the said I.A. is contrary to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It is now fairly well settled that in spite of the proviso under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court shall not denounce its power to allow the amendment when interest of justice so warrants. When the respondent/plaintiff already mentioned about the registration of the property by the Municipal authorities, the amendment is by way of clarification only by giving the document number and the registration, which is said to have been shown on 02.08.2004 and whereas the document has been executed on 14.07.2004, allowing the amendment will not change the nature of the suit. Therefore, the court below rightly allowed the application filed for amendment. Having regard to the nature of the suit filed for partition, amendment carried out does not suffer from any manifest illegality, since it will facilitate the Court in effectively adjudicating the lis between the parties. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J February 2, 2011 Lmv