THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6194 of 2009 DATED: 09.03.2011 Between: K.Vivekananda Reddy. .... PETITIONER And Kowlur Krishna Devi & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 20.10.2009, in I.A.No.528 of 2009 in O.S.No.4132 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Notices issued against the respondents returned unclaimed. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the plaint schedule properties between the plaintiff and the husband of the 1st defendant. The husband of the 1st defendant is no more. According to the plaintiff, himself and the 1st defendant are entitled for half share each in the plaint schedule properties. Defendants 1 and 2 were initially set ex parte, and an ex parte decree was passed on 28.02.2006. 1st defendant filed I.A.No.586 of 2010 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC along with written statement. The said petition was allowed on 22.11.2007 on payment of costs. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a rejoinder on 19.12.2007 denying the contention of the 1st defendant that the property was acquired by the daughter of the 1st defendant-Shilpa Reddy under a Will. According to the plaintiff, two documents namely sale deed, dated 29.09.2004, and gift deed, dated 05.05.2003, were brought into existence by the 1st defendant. The first one in favour of the 2nd defendant and the second one in favour of the daughter of the 1st defendant-Shilpa Reddy. Plaintiff therefore filed I.A.No.528 of 2009, seeking amendment of the plaint praying for cancellation of the two documents and also for eviction of the 2nd defendant from the ‘B’ schedule property and divide the same into two portions and put the plaintiff in possession of one such share. 1st respondent filed a counter opposing the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the said petition mainly on the ground of delay by observing that the plaintiff has not taken any steps to amend the plaint though the written statement was filed in 2006, for which the plaintiff filed a rejoinder also. The matter is stated to be at the threshold of trial. 4. It is to be noted that the suit is one for partition. According to the plaintiff, she came to know about the existence of the two documents, namely the sale deed and the gift deed, only subsequent to filing of the written statement. No doubt, plaintiff would have filed the application for amendment at an earlier stage also. However, the failure of the plaintiff to take necessary steps, immediately after filing of the written statement, cannot be allowed to defeat the interest of justice. When once it is found that the proposed amendment relates to the subject-matter of the suit, before granting/rejecting the relief prayed for in the suit, the trial Court has to necessarily consider the impact of the two documents over the respective contentions of the parties. It cannot therefore be said that the proposed amendment is irrelevant or unnecessary. In order to have a comprehensive adjudication of the dispute and to render effective and substantial justice between the parties, it is considered that the plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint as proposed. No prejudice would be caused to the defendants by allowing the proposed amendment since the trial of the suit has not yet commenced. Further, the defendants would certainly have an opportunity to file an additional written statement, if any, they choose to and raise all such contentions as are permissible under law. The proposed amendment would only help the Court in deciding the dispute in a comprehensive manner. The impugned order, dismissing the application on the ground of delay, is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 5. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th March, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within two days. B/o Tsy