IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5380 of 2009 Between: M/s. Mathya Divers, Visakhapatnam, reptd., by its Managing Partner-Sri Sada Chaturvedi, S/o. Sri Ch.Muralidarudu, 50 yrs, Plot No.164, Gajapathinagar, Visakhapatnam-24 and two others. … Petitioners And: Sri N.Joji. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.R.Prasad. Counsel for the Respondent: --- This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 5-10-2009 in I.A.No.332 of 2009 in O.S.No.2703 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby the learned Junior Civil Judge partly allowed the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint. To the extent of the order rejecting the petitioners’ prayer for amendment, they have filed this revision petition. The petitioners are plaintiffs in the above mentioned suit. They sought for a decree for declaration that the respondent-defendant ceased to be a partner of the 1st petitioner-firm on account of his retirement from it with effect from 9-10-1999 and for some other consequential reliefs. More than eight years after filing of the suit and after the defendant has filed his affidavit evidence, the petitioners moved the Court below for amendment of the plaint. As noted above, the Court below partly allowed the said application. At the hearing, Sri P.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that rejection of part of the petitioners’ application for amendment of plaint resulted in failure of justice; and that by allowing such an amendment, the complexion of the case will not be changed. Having carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners failed to explain the inordinate delay in approaching the Court below with an application for amendment. No doubt, the Court is vested with the power to allow the amendments at any time. The party, who seeks amendment, should satisfy the Court that he is vigilant and that in spite of proper care and precautions, he could not file the application within a reasonable time. A perusal of the pleadings shows that no such plea has been raised by the petitioners. In my view, such a belated application does not deserve to be considered. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:13-11-2009 MNR