IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5190 OF 2006 Between: Pathuri Pavan Kumar and another .....PETITIONERS AND Pathuri Ramanujamma and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5190 OF 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 13.10.2006, in I.A.No.765 of 2006 in O.S.No.555 of 2003, on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order VI Rules 16 and 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to make necessary amendments to the pleadings in plaint and for consequential amendments thereof, was dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. The suit is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for partition of ‘A’ schedule property into three equal shares and to direct the respondents/defendants to pay 1/3rd share in the half share of Pathuri Gandhi out of the sale proceeds of the ‘B’ – schedule property. Originally, the petitioners sought for payment of 1/3rd share of the sale proceeds of ‘B’ schedule property in view of the fact that the ‘B’ – schedule property was sold away even prior to giving of notice. That is the reason why the petitioners got issued notice to the respondents claiming the sale proceeds to an extent of 1/3rd share in the ‘B’ – schedule property. In the said suit, the present petition is filed to amend the plaint. 4. In view of amendment of C.P.C. in the year 2002, filing of amendment petition after the trial, is not routine. Unless the party shows that in spite of taking due diligence and care, it could not have pleaded, the amendment cannot be allowed. Such due diligence has not been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The object of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. is that the Courts should try the merits of the cases that come before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided, it does not cause injustice or prejudice to other side. Even at the time of giving notice, the case of the petitioners is that they are entitled for 1/3rd of sale proceeds of ‘B’ – schedule property, in view of the fact that the ‘B’ – schedule property has been sold to the third parties, but not with regard to 1/3rd share in the ‘B’ schedule property. The trial of the case has already been completed and the matter is posted for arguments. At this stage, the present petition is filed after a lapse of three or four years, with a view to protract the proceedings. Therefore, the trial Court, upon consideration of evidence on record, rightly dismissed the same. The impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 10, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5190 OF 2006 February 10, 2011