THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.3875 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.686 of 2009 in O.S.No.23 of 2004 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to amend the plaint, was allowed. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the first respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 2004 filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties. When the trial of the suit has commenced, the first respondent filed the above said I.A. and the same was allowed by the trial Court having observed that in a suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties, the debts incurred by the parties is a relevant point for consideration. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that when the trial of the suit has commenced, the Court below erred in allowing the petition for amendment of the plaint. He further contended that the partition was effected in the month of February, 1991 and that as the debts alleged to have been incurred by the first respondent are subsequent to filing of the suit, the same cannot be incorporated in the plaint by the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the first respondent contended that subsequent to filing of the suit, the first respondent constructed a house in part of item No.6 of the plaint A schedule property by borrowing a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and therefore, it is necessary to include the subsequent event in the plaint for the purpose of adjudication. 6. Order VI Rule 17 CPC reads as under; Amendment of pleadings-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. The above said provision clearly says that if the Court, prima facie, satisfied that the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, the same may be allowed. According to the first respondent, after filing of the suit, he has constructed a house in part of item No.6 of the plaint A schedule property by incurring debts and shifted his residence to that place. Since the debts incurred by the first respondent has already brought to the notice of the Court by some of the defendants by way of additional written statement, the amendment of the plaint to that effect cannot be said to be illegal. The trial Court has rightly observed that the debts incurred by the parties is a relevant point for consideration in a suit for partition and that as it is an event, which took place after filing the suit, it is necessary to amend the plaint as sought for by the first respondent. Therefore, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 05.03.2010 sj