THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 582 of 2011 Dated: 18-03-2011 Between: Gandi Papayya …Petitioner And Kadikonda Mangatayaru and others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 582 of 2011 Dated: 18-03-2011 Oral Order: No case is made out for interference in this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No. 392 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule property. Though the revision petitioner had laconically pleaded in his written statement that the suit is not maintainable, but he did not set out the reasons for the said pleading. After the trial of the suit (of the year 2003) commenced and the evidence of the plaintiff’s side had been recorded and closed, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No. 1911 of 2010 seeking amendment of the written statement, an application filed under Order-VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) raising pleas that the plaintiff is aware of the partition deed dated 08-08-2002; the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have separate properties to their share not included in the plaint schedule; the plaintiff ought to have added those properties as well and claimed partition of her alleged share in those properties; and as the plaintiff failed to include properties given to defendant Nos. 2 to 4, the suit is not maintainable for seeking partial partition. The Court below rejected the above application on the ground that in view of the amendment to Order VI Rule 17 CPC which disentitles amendment of the pleadings after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial; and as the revision petitioner – 1st defendant failed to plead any justification whatsoever for the belated application for amendment of the written statement, he is not entitled to relief in I.A.No. 1911 of 2010. This Court discerns no error in the application of law including the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 proviso of CPC nor any error in the exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The revision petition is without merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 18-03-2011 Pvks/*