THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVL REVISION PETITION NO.2262 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order passed by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A.No.93 of 2007 in O.S.No.624 of 2001. I.A.No.93 of 2007 is an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the petitioner-plaintiff to amend the plaint, and to substitute 1/36th share mentioned in the plaint as 1/6th share in the ancestral property, and also to add the words, “The plaintiff submits that during the pendency of the suit, she came to know and was advised that she will get the equal share in the suit schedule properties on par with her brothers as per the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The plaintiff has become one of the coparceners and she is entitled to equal share i.e., 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties on par with other coparceners” as para-5 (a) after para-5 in the plaint. The respondents-defendants filed their counter affidavit contending that, since Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act is substituted by Act 39 of 2005 with effect from 09.09.2005, it would not effect or invalidate any dispossession or alienation including any partition or discretionary dispossession of the property, which has taken place before December, 2004 and, in as much as the joint family property had already been partitioned in the year 1981, Section 6 had no application. They further contended that the suit was filed in the year 2001 whereas Section 6 of the Act was substituted with effect from 09.09.2005, and the petitioner had filed the I.A. seeking amendment of the plaint in the year 2007 when the matter was coming up for the evidence of the defendants. The Court below, by the order under challenge, held that the plea of the petitioner is not considerable as it is against the law and is bereft of reasons. All that the Court below has recorded is that the petitioner-plaintiff had not placed any contra authority before the Court for entitlement to amend the plaint and, since the petitioner failed to establish the contention, the petition was liable to be dismissed. What is sought by the petitioner-plaintiff is to amend the plaint by including para-5 (a) and amending the prayer therein. The question whether or not Section 6, as substituted by Act 39 of 2005, would apply to suits filed in the year 2001; whether there was an earlier partition in the year 1981 attracting the proviso to Section 6; are all matters that the trial Court has to examine only after issues are framed in this regard and evidence is let in. That cannot be a ground to deny the petitioner the benefit of amendment of the plaint. Sri G.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents, would, however, contend that, under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, no application for amendment can be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. Learned counsel would draw attention of this Court to the specific plea in the counter affidavit filed to the said I.A., wherein the defendant stated that the matter was coming up for their evidence (i.e., evidence of the defendants). Learned counsel would submit that, since trial had already commenced and the petitioner- plaintiff had already let in evidence, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 would apply and, in the absence of due diligence being shown by the petitioner-plaintiff, it was not permissible for the Court below to entertain the said application. Learned counsel would draw attention of this Court to the averments in the affidavit wherein the petitioner stated that they recently came to know about the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act. Learned counsel would state that such vague and bald averments, in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., would not constitute “due diligence” and the I.A., as filed, is liable to be rejected and this Court, in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ought not to interfere. While the submission of Sri G.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents, cannot be said to be without merit, the fact remains that the Court below did not examine the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 from this angle. The jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and this Court would not take upon itself the task of determining whether or not there was due diligence on the part of the petitioner- plaintiff in filing the said I.A. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to set aside the order under revision and remand the I.A. back for consideration of the Trial Court which shall, within four {4} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, examine the petitioner’s application on the basis of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, hear both the parties and, thereafter, pass orders in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 24th June 2010 RRB