( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vishnu Ram the counsel representing Smt. Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy and Sri Ramachandrarao the counsel representing Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi. ( 2 ) C. M. P. 24042 of 2003 in CMP 17179 of 2003 in CRP 3620 of 2003 is filed by the respondent in the C. R. P. G. Maruthi Seetha ramireddi, to vacate the interim stay dated 8-8-2003. At this stage, both the counsel had addressed arguments in the main C. R. P. itself and that is how the C. R. P. is being disposed of finally by this court at the stage of hearing of the vacate application. ( 3 ) THE revision petitioners - defendants in the suit, O. S. 10 of 2000 on the file of Third additional District Judge, Tirupathi filed i. A. 1708 of 2002 in O. S. 10 of 2000 praying for amendment of written statement by adding para 17 (a) in the written statement Learned third Additional District Judge, Tirupathi by order dated 17-3-2003, dismissed the application and aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners - defendants had preferred the present C. R. P. ( 4 ) THE only question raised by the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners is that, the learned Third Additional District judge while deciding the application praying for amendment of the written statement had virtually gone into the merits of the proposed amendment and ultimately had dismissed the application. Learned counsel also in fairness submitted that the learned Third additional District Judge had observed that the proposed pleas are legal pleas only. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the application was thought of at a belated stage when the suit was coming up for arguments and on ground that the application was moved at such a belated stage, learned Third Additional District Judge arrived at a correct conclusion and had dismissed the application. Learned counsel further submitted that the only view of the revision Petitioners is to postpone the disposal of the main suit. Learned counsel further submitted that the only view of the revision Petitioners is to postpone the disposal of the main suit. Counsel in all fairness had submitted that the pleas raised relating to the cancellation of documents and also relating to the calculation of the shares in view of the mother - deceased, grand mother, those two pleas being just legal pleas, there is no necessity of amending the pleading at all and this itself shows that only with a view to further postpone the delivery of judgment in the matter, this application was thought of at a belated stage and hence in as much as, this is not a bona fide application, the impugned order deserves to be confirmed even by this revisional Court. ( 6 ) HEARD both the counsel ( 7 ) RESPONDENT herein as plaintiff in the suit filed O. S. 10 of 2000 on the file of Third additional District Judge, Tirupathi for the relief of partition. The Plaintiff and the I defendant are brothers and the 2nd defendant is the son of the I defendant. ( 8 ) PLEADINGS of both parties are also sufficiently elaborate pleadings. It is not in controversy that this application was moved at a belated stage when the suit was coming up for arguments and in view of the delay, the learned Third Additional District Judge felt that the said application deserves to be dismissed. Para 17 (a) the proposed amendment appended to the application reads as hereunder:"the defendants submit that the frame of the suit is not proper. The plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for cancellation of the registered settlement deed dt. 31-10-1983, regd. Adoption deed dt. 28-5-1992 and the regd. Will dt. 23-10-1996 executed by m. Ramachandra Reddy and the regd. Will dt. 30-10-1994 executed by g. Subbarathnamma since the plaintiff has knowledge of those documents even prior to the filing of the suit. The defendants further submit that when m. Ramachandra Reddy died he was survived by his wife, Ponnamma and daughter, Subbarathnamma. It is an admitted fact that Subbarathnamma predeceased her mother, Ponnamma. Hence the calculation of the plaintiff s share based on the death of subbarathnamma is bad in law. M. Ramachandra Reddy was hale and healthy when he executed the documents in question. It is an admitted fact that Subbarathnamma predeceased her mother, Ponnamma. Hence the calculation of the plaintiff s share based on the death of subbarathnamma is bad in law. M. Ramachandra Reddy was hale and healthy when he executed the documents in question. The plaintiff who had knowledge of the existence of the documents before has simply filed this suit for partition paying fixed court fees under Section 34 (2) of the A. P. C. F. Act impliedly seeking the cancellation of the aforementioned deeds which is not permissible in Law and the plaintiff has to be non suited. " ( 9 ) THE learned Third Additional District judge Tirupathi at Para 9 while answering the point had stated as hereunder: "as can be seen, the petitioners want to introduce two legal pleas in their written statement. Firstly that the suit for mere partition is not maintainable without seeking for cancellation of several documents executed by their mother and grand father as the plaintiff knows about those documents even prior to the suit. Secondly, that in view of their mother predeceased their grand mother, the calculation of plaintiff s share based on the death of their mother is bad in law. Further, at para 10, the learned Third additional District Judge also further stated as hereunder: "so far as first plea is concerned, as con tended by the plaintiff he is not a party in any of those documents. His case is that his grand father was suffering from mental and physical ill-health and so he could not have executed any documents and those documents were brought up by the defendants either by way of fraud or by impersonation. Regarding the will said to be executed by his mother, his contention is that long prior to this will, she deposited her title deeds concerning to A schedule with the bank along with plaintiff and in view of it, she could not have executed the will. In the light of those respective contentions, I do not see any necessity for plaintiff to seek for cancellation of the afore mentioned Wills and registered settlement deeds. If ultimately those documents are found not genuine, the plaintiff will get a share or otherwise the suit is liable to be dismissed. In the light of those respective contentions, I do not see any necessity for plaintiff to seek for cancellation of the afore mentioned Wills and registered settlement deeds. If ultimately those documents are found not genuine, the plaintiff will get a share or otherwise the suit is liable to be dismissed. So far as the allotment of shares basing on the death of plaintiff s mother is concerned, the same is purely a question of law and it can be raised at any time, for that there is no reason to allow this petition for the amendment of the pleadings of the written statement, at this belated stage when the suit is coming up for arguments. Hence this petition is dismissed. " as can be see from the order impugned, and the reasons recorded at Para 10, virtually the learned Third Additional District Judge had gone into the merits of the proposed amendment sought to be introduced. No doubt, the learned Third Additional District judge had also given an additional reason that the application was moved at a belated stage and hence the same deserves to be dismissed. The suit O. S. 10 of 2000 is of the year 2000. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of civil Procedure was omitted by the Code of civil Procedure Amendment Act 1999, Act 46 of 1999, the same was reintroduced in the amended form by the Code of Civil Procedure amendment Act, 2002, Act 22 of 2002. In view of Section 16 of the Act 22 of 2002 dealing with repel and savings, a provision as it stood, prior to the Amendment Act alone is applicable to the present case. In M. K. Krishnarao v. Sri Gangadeswarar temple and other con nected temples by Trustees, reported in AIR 1949, Madras 433, it was held that the procedure of court giving finding against allegations in intended amendment without allowing it to be improper. ( 10 ) IN another case between: Mangal Dass sant Ram Gauba v. Union of India and others, it was held that"where an amendment of a plaint is sought in order to take up a new ground, the court at that stage cannot consider whether the ground is available to the plaintiff or not and the amendment cannot be refused on the ground that the new ground is not available to him. "the words "all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy, between parties" in Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. assume importance in deciding the present controversy. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective pleadings of the parties and also the proposed amendment. It is no doubt true, that the proposed amendment is sought to be introduced at a belated stage. But on the ground of delay alone, an amendment of pleading cannot be refused, especially in the light of clear language as it stood originally prior to the Amendment Act. It is no doubt true that at the stage of argument, the petitioners are not justified in coming up with the proposed amendment, but in view of the words "any such amendment shall be on such terms as may be just", I am of the considered opinion that in view of the inordinate delay, it is a fit matter where the revision Petitioners may be permitted to amend the written statement by introducing the proposed amendment subject to the payment of some terms. ( 11 ) IN view of the same, the impugned order is set a side on the condition of the revision Petitioners paying Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the counsel representing the respondent within a fortnight from today failing which, the impugned order stands. It is also brought to my notice that the object of the petitioners is to further delay the matter. It is needless to observe that after the period of fortnight, specified supra, the learned third Additional District Judge, Tirupathi is expected to expedite the disposal of the matter at the earliest point of time, preferably within a period of three months.