HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1258 OF 2009 Dt.17th August,2009 Jubeda Bee … Petitioner Vs. 1. Rajjabasab and ten others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1258 OF 2009 O R D E R: Heard the counsel. This Court ordered notice before admission on 30.3.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time. Sri A.V.Sivaiah, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1. R-2 to R-11 are shown as not necessary parties in the present Civil Revision Petition. Sri R.V.Prasad, the learned counsel representing the petitioner would maintain that the dismissal of the application praying for amendment, made by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, had caused serious prejudice to the revision petitioner. The counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the order under challenge and would maintain that the reasoning adopted by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, is unsustainable in law. The counsel also would maintain that the proposed amendment is absolutely necessary to prove the case of the petitioner and in such a case, the mere fact that the trial, already had commenced could not seriously alter the situation. The counsel also would maintain that on a careful analysis of the facts and also the reasoning adopted by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, it is clear that the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni had not applied mind properly while deciding the application. The counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Usha Devi v Rijwan Ahamd and others[1]. Per contra, Sri A.V.Sivaiah, the learned counsel representing respondent-plaintiff would maintain that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni after referring to the respective stands taken by the parties in the affidavit filed in support of the application and also in the counter having formulated the point for determination at para 5 recorded reasons in detail at paras 6 and 7 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the application to be dismissed. Hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel also would further maintain that the pleas which are being putforth, one being a plea in deviation of the prior pleas and another being a plea relating to the non-joinder of the legal heirs of Hussain Bee. These aspects also had been taken into consideration by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni and inasmuch as this application has been brought up only with a view to further prolong the matter, the learned Judge arrived at the correct conclusion in dismissing the application. The counsel also would maintain that the question relating to non-joinder of parties especially in a partition, action can be putforth even at the time of arguments and there is no necessity of amending the written statement to the said fact. As far as the other pleas are concerned, the counsel would contend that it is not only a belated plea but also a plea which is in deviation of the prior plea. At any rate in the light of the convincing reasons recorded in the Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Code’ for the purpose of convenience) even if the facts and circumstances of the case to be carefully examined, this is not a fit case to be interfered with. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner-first defendant being aggrieved by an order made in I.A.No.831 of 2008 in O.S.No.390 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. The said application was filed praying for amendment of the written statement. It is stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application that a stand of the plaintiff that the other legal heirs have no shaes being not correct and the event being subsequent to suit, the written statement to be accordingly amended. Further it is stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder of legal heirs of M.Hassan Sab (D-5) who died subsequent to the filing of the suit and hence written statement to be amended accordingly. In the counter filed, it is stated that the application for amendment had been filed at a belated stage and the petitioner wants to set up a new case. The present stand, which is being taken would change the cause of action and also the admitted stand taken in the written statement originally. Certain further facts also had been specified in paras 3 and 4 of the counter. The learned Judge having formulated the point for determination at para 5 after recording reasons at paras 6 and 7, ultimately dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred. The learned Judge observed that as seen from the written statement, the petitioner had taken a stand that she obtained the suit schedule property by way of registered Gift Deed through her husband, which came to the share of her husband. But in the application for amendment of written statement it is stated that she purchased the suit schedule property on 3.4.2008 and this being a new version, the same cannot be permitted. The learned Judge also recorded further reasons taking into consideration the language of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. No doubt strong reliance was placed on Usha Devi v Rijwan Ahamd and others (one) supra, the Apex Court in fact referred to Sajjan Kumar v Ram Kishan[2]. It appears in a three-Judges Bench was dealing too the proposed amendment related to correction of the description of the suit premises in the plaint. No doubt in the back group of factual situation, the Apex Court in Usha Devi v Rijwan Ahamd and others (one) surpa, after referring to the said decision made certain observations. In the light of the facts and circumstances especially in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _________________ P.S.NARAYANA,J 17th August, 2009. PNV [1] 2008(3) ALD, 1 (SC) [2] 2005(13) SCC 89