THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.NO.5744 OF 2008 09.06.2010 A. Sudershan Reddy & 2 others. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS A. Jagga Reddy and 5 others. ...RESPONDENTS < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: !Counsel for Petitioner : Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy ^Counsel for Respondents: Sri V Prasad Sri T.S Anand ? Cases referred 1. 2007 (4) ALD 132 2. 2006 ALD (3) 614 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5744 OF 2008 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 24.11.2008 made in I.A.No.601of 2008 in 600 of 2008 in O.S.No.85 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy whereby the petition seeking amendment of the plaint i.e. for inclusion of two items into the plaint schedule was allowed. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioners herein, being the plaintiffs, instituted the said suit seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties mentioned therein against the respondents who are none other than the brothers. The respondents/defendants are contesting the said suit by filing written statement wherein they have taken a plea that some of the joint family properties are not included in the plaint schedule. The issues were settled, evidence on both sides was also closed and the matter was coming up for arguments. At that stage the respondents/defendants filed the present applications requesting the court to reopen the said suit and also for inclusion of the properties that were not included in the plaint schedule. The court below having considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for both sides came to the conclusion that the petitions are to be allowed and accordingly reopened the said suit and directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint schedule as requested by the respondents/defendants. The same is questioned by the plaintiffs in this revision. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs the defendants cannot ask for amendment of the plaint and the court below grossly erred in allowing the said applications. It is his further contention that it is only to prolong the litigation, the respondents/ defendants, at the stage of arguments, have come forward with the present application. The learned counsel for the petitioners / Plaintiffs relied on the decision of this court in Alimineti Sadanandam Vs. Daripelly Narayana Charyulu and others[1]. 4 Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants submitted that the amendment of the plaint can be made either at the instance of the plaintiffs or at the instance of the defendants or suo motu by the court and hence the order impugned in this revision allowing the said amendment is justified. 5 Amendment of the pleadings is dealt with under Order VI rule 17 CP and the said provision of law reads as follows: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed 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 trial. 6 From the above provision of law, it is clear that in the normal circumstances, amendment of the pleadings shall be done before commencement of the trial ad it is only when the court is convinced that such an application for amendment could not be filed before commencement of trial, then it may permit the parties to amend the pleadings at any stage thereafter. For amendment of the pleadings in the plaint, an application under the said provision of law, can be filed only by the plaintiff but not by the defendant. However, if the court is satisfied after recording of the evidence that the pleadings either in the plaint or in the written statement require to be amended it may on its own direct the parties to make the required amendment. But by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the defendant can ask for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff for the reason that plaint is the document of the plaintiff and hence the defendant has no say with regard to the averments in the plaint. Of course, it is always left open to the defendant to deny the said averments made in the plaint by filing a detailed written statement. In fact, in the case on hand, already a plea has been taken by the defendants stating that some of the properties are not included in the plaint schedule. In that view of the matter the defendants, even with the leave of the court, cannot ask for amendment of the plaint. If they have any grievance about the non inclusion of some of the properties in the plaint schedule, they can as well plead the same in their written statement and bring the said fact to the notice of the court by way of letting evidence and then the court will definitely look into the said aspect. 7 The decision on which the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance, in my considered view, has no application to the facts of the case on hand. What was observed by the learned Judge in the said judgment is that amendment of the pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings when it cannot be said that the proposed amendment alters the nature of the suit or cause of action and when amendment is necessary for determining real question in controversy between the parties. 8 From the above judgment it cannot be said that the defendants can ever ask for amendment of the plaint. In fact, the very same Judge in Chilakani Venkata Rao Vs Ch.Lakshman Rao[2] has taken the view that the plaint can be amended either by the court suo motu or by the plaintiff only by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 9 In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the said order dated 24.11.2008 allowing the application filed by the respondents /defendants and directing the plaintiffs to amend the plaint as desired by the respondents/defendants is erroneous and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 10 In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 24.11.2008 made in I.A.No.601of 2008 in 600 of 2008 in O.S.No.85 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. 11 As an important legal issue is involved, this court appointed Mr.T.S. Anand as amices curiae to assist this court and this court expresses its thanks to Mr. T.S. Anand for his valuable assistance. -------------- 09.06.2010 L.R. Copy to be marked B/o Kvsn [1] 2007 (4) ALD 132 [2] 2006 ALD (3) 614