ORDER : 1. The petitioner/party-in-person filed these Writ Petitions against the order dated 07.04.2016 made in O.S. No. 35/2007 dismissing I.A. No. 15 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the plaint and I.A. No. 16 filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce documents. 2. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court, filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties contending that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 15 to 21 and there was no partition in the joint family properties and to declare alleged release deed dated 03.07.1943, if existing as void and have it duly cancelled as also its registration under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. The defendants filed written statement and denied the plaint averments and contended that the very suit filed by the plaintiff for relief sought for is not maintainable. It is further contended that the partition 1st amongst defendant is already effected and even the property documents have already effected and now suit filed without seeking cancellation nor reopen the suit filed for partition is not maintainable. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 3. When the matter was posted for defendants evidence, at that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A. Nos. 15 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint for inclusion of 8 items of the properties contending that recently he came to know that the proposed properties under the amendment are also joint family properties and he was not having the knowledge earlier when the suit was filed. Therefore, he sought permission to include proposed properties as joint family properties. He also filed another application I.A. No. 16 under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce list of documents in support of his case stating that the documents proposed are necessary to adjudicate the matter between the parties. The defendants filed the objections to the said applications reiterating the averments made in the written statement contending that the very suit is not maintainable and the applications filed are also not maintainable. 4. The defendants filed the objections to the said applications reiterating the averments made in the written statement contending that the very suit is not maintainable and the applications filed are also not maintainable. 4. The trial Court considering both the applications and objections by the impugned order dated 07.04.2016 dismissed the applications. Hence the present Writ Petitions are filed. 5. I have heard the petitioner/Party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Sri. H.V. Srinivasamurthy, Party-in-person contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the applications for amendment and for production of documents is erroneous, contrary to material on record. It is a suit for partition, the inclusion of certain properties will not prejudice the case of the defendants and it will not alter the nature of the suit. The trial Court rejected the applications only on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 2007 and the applications are filed in the year 2017. Therefore, he contended that the impugned order is liable to be quashed by allowing the Writ Petitions. 7. Sri. Ramesh P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for LRs of R1(AC) sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the suit was filed in the year 2007 and when the matter was posted for defendants’ evidence at that belated stage, applications are filed. The trial Court considering the applications and the objections rightly dismissed the applications and therefore, sought to dismiss the present Writ Petitions. 8. Having heard the party-in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff the present petitioner filed the suit for partition in respect of suit schedule properties contending that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 21 and specifically stated in the application for amendment that recently he came to know that certain joint family properties are left out while filing the suit. Therefore, they have to be included. Whether the proposed properties are joint family properties or properties of the defendants has to be adjudicated by the trial Court. Mere allowing the application for amendment to include certain properties in the suit for partition would not prejudice the rights of the defendants. 9. Ultimately, it is for the plaintiff to establish that the proposed properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 21. Mere allowing the application for amendment to include certain properties in the suit for partition would not prejudice the rights of the defendants. 9. Ultimately, it is for the plaintiff to establish that the proposed properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 21. The documents sought to be produced along with the application is in connection with the proposed properties under which the amendment is sought. It is ultimately the plaintiff has to prove that how the documents are related to prove the case. Admittedly, evidence is not completed. As on the date of filing of the applications, the evidence was half–away. Allowing the application for amendment will not prejudice the rights of the defendants. The amendment sought for is imperative for adjudication of the case of the plaintiff. If amendment is refused, it would lead to injustice and multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit. The trial Court ought to have allowed the said applications. The same has not been done in the present case. 10. The trial Court mainly proceeded on the ground of delay in filing the applications since the suit was filed in the year 2007 and the applications are filed in the year 2017. Since the rights of the parties are involved in respect of the immovable properties, it should not deprive rights of the either of the parties on technicalities. In view of the reasons stated supra, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER: (1) The Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the trial Court is quashed. I.A. No. 15 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the plaint and I.A. No. 16 filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce documents are allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants on the next date of hearing. (2) However, it is made clear that the plaintiff should not drag the proceedings since the suit is of the year 2007 and now, we are in 2017. 5,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants on the next date of hearing. (2) However, it is made clear that the plaintiff should not drag the proceedings since the suit is of the year 2007 and now, we are in 2017. The trial Court is directed to expedite the suit itself within outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.