O R D E R It is stated by the Counsel representing the revision petitioners that in pursuance of the direction of this Court, the learned Counsel had served notice on the Counsel representing the parties before the trial Court. The proof of service is also filed. 2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the application praying for amendment of the written statement by introducing para 7(a) was dismissed only on the ground of delay. The learned Counsel would submit that the suit was filed for partition and due to oversight, certain facts were not incorporated in the written statement. The learned Counsel would maintain that the proposed amendment is more clarificatory in nature, but the learned Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that it was moved at a belated stage, and the same cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on M.P.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR v. RAJU (1). 3.Heard the Counsel. 4. The unsuccessful petitioners-defendants in I.A.No.453/2005 in O.S.No.70/2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, had preferred the C.R.P. under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application praying for the relief of amending the written statement. The proposed amendment to be shown as para-7(a) in I.A.No.453/2005 in O.S.No.70/2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon, is as hereunder: “This defendant is entitled for the share as per law. He never authorized and permitted any person to look after or to manage or received any amounts since there is no lawful partition and fixation of the specified boundaries, hence this defendant is entitled for his share. If the plaintiff No. l has any bona fide claim she ought to have agitate before proper forum by separate proceedings, but not under the shelter of the above partition suit.” The first petitioner had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the application and had stated that the written statement was filed narrating the facts and circumstances but due to oversight certain facts were not incorporated in the written statement and hence the parties may be permitted to add the said facts by amending the written statement. It was also stated that the suit is at the initial stage only and hence by allowing the said application, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of respondents-plaintiffs. It was also stated that the suit is at the initial stage only and hence by allowing the said application, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of respondents-plaintiffs. The learned Judge at para-7 of the order observed that the said application was filed at a belated stage when the defendants had to commence the evidence and in a suit for partition the plaintiffs have to prove what is pleaded in the plaint and defendant No. 1 in the suit can prove by way of placing evidence before the Court as to what he wanted to prove and thus the learned Judge was not satisfied that the proposed amendment is necessary to be brought on record to prove the case. Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. was re-introduced by the Amending Act (Act 22 of 2002) by virtue of Section 7 of the said Act and the Repeal and Savings are dealt with by Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. In view of the fact that the suit was instituted prior to the coming into force of amending provision of Section 7 of Act 22 of 2002, the rigor of the proviso is not applicable and it is needless to say that such prior amendments of the pleadings may have to be liberally allowed. Apart from this aspect of the matter, on a careful perusal of the written statement filed and also the proposed amendment shown as para 7 (a) in the application, it appears that the proposed amendment is more clarificatory in nature explaining some more details. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is hereby set aside and the C.R.P. is hereby allowed. No costs. --X—