Andhra HC (PreTelangana) Vempalli Srinivasula Reddy vs V.M. Ramakrishna Reddy And Ors. on 8 September, 2005 Equivalent citations: 2006(1)ALT160 ORDER P.S. Narayana, J. 1. Heard Sri Mahadeva, the counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri Ramesh the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. This Court on 1882005 ordered notice before admission and the interim stay was granted for a period of four weeks. The counsel representing the respondents had entered appearance and the Civil Revision Petition is heard at length and the same is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Sri Mahadeva, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 519 of 2002 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddutur would contend that the petitioner, as plaintiff filed I.A. No. 641 of 2005 in the said suit praying for amendment. The learned counsel would also contend that the petitioner filed the application praying for alteration of the plaint plan in view of the report of the Commissioner and the plan filed by the Commissioner. The learned counsel would also submit that this can be taken as a subsequent event and inasmuch as liberty was prayed for when a prior similar application had been dismissed, the said order would not come in the way of this Court in considering the present application and Civil Revision Petition on merits. The learned counsel also explained that the affidavit of chiefexamination was filed on 3092004. But, however, inasmuch as the main provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short hereafter referred to as 'Code') specifies "at any stage of proceedings", the same can be allowed inasmuch as this is only a subsequent event and also in view of the fact that the petitionerplaintiff has been prosecuting the litigation with all diligence. The learned counsel however in all fairness would submit that this would be a posttrial amendment and not a pretrial amendment and also would submit that the suit itself is instituted after the Amendment Act 22 of 2002 coming into force and hence, the amended provision alone would be applicable. 4. Per contra Sri Ramesh the learned counsel representing the respondents would contend that the present application is not a bona fide one for the reason that even in the affidavit filed in relation to chiefexamination nothing relating to this aspect had been specified. Apart from this aspect of the matter the learned counsel also would point out that similar application had been moved and the same was dismissed. The learned counsel would also submit that in spite of repeated adjournments, though the matter is an identified one the petitioner is not further proceeding with the matter and this application was thought of only with a view to delay the proceedings and hence there are no bona fides at all on the part of the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel on record. 6. The petitioner as plaintiff moved I.A. No. 641 of 2005 in O.S. No. 519 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddutur praying for amendment of the pleading. It is stated that he had taken a Commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule property and it is also stated that he filed an affidavit in relation to the chiefexamination on 3092004 and the Court also imposed costs of Rs. 100/ in relation thereto and in view of the report and the plan the petitioner prayed for permission to alter the plaint plan. The said application was resisted on the ground that the proposed amendment is not a bona fide one and it would amount to introducing a new cause of action. It is not in controversy between the parties that the petitioner already filed an application I.A. No. 494 of 2005 in the said suit praying for similar relief to amend the plaint plan and to change the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and the same was not pressed and consequently dismissed. 7. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code reads as hereunder. 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. 8. The proviso aforesaid was added by Amended Act 22 of 2002. The words "after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial", would assume some importance in deciding the present application. 9. In E. Prasad Goud v. B. Lakshmana Goud the learned Judge observed: The entire object of the sa