ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A. No. 630 of 2018 in O.S. No. 278 of 2011 dated 26.11.2018 of the Court of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Prakasam, at Ongole, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The plaintiff is the petitioner. The defendants are the respondents. The dispute is mainly in between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. 3. The deceased 2nd respondent and Dr.Subba Rao are the parents of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The petitioner laid a suit for partition against the respondents with reference to plaint ‘A’ to ‘E‘ schedule properties to divide into two equal shares and to allot one such share to him as well as separate possession in respect thereof. Out of plaint ‘A’ to ‘E’ schedule properties, plaint ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ are investments or cash and whereas plaint ‘A’ schedule property consists of immovable property. During pendency of the suit, the 2nd respondent died. 4. The claim of the petitioner is resisted by the 1st respondent filing a written statement raising various grounds including setting up a Will in her favour alleged to have had been executed by her father on 15.12.2010. 5. The suit is now part-heard and is coming up for evidence on behalf of the respondents (defendants). 6. At that stage, the petitioner sought amendment of the plaint to include a house property shown in ‘F’ schedule, described in a separate memo appended to the petition in I.A. No. 630 of 2018. 7. The reason assigned by the petitioner is that it is also a property available for partition, divisible in nature amongst them and therefore, it should be included. He further contended that this property was originally settled under a registered settlement deed dated 10.06.1975 in his favour as well as his mother by his father and that it was acted upon. He further contended that since he was going abroad, in order to manage the same and for better enjoyment, his father obtained a nominal settlement deed dated 10.05.2000 from him and also for the purpose of leasing it out, for collections of rents with an understanding that this property shall belong to him alone. He further contended that since he was going abroad, in order to manage the same and for better enjoyment, his father obtained a nominal settlement deed dated 10.05.2000 from him and also for the purpose of leasing it out, for collections of rents with an understanding that this property shall belong to him alone. He further claimed that he was under the same impression in respect of this property and that he later on came to know that the 1st respondent obtained a fraudulent document in respect of half share of their mother in that property. He claimed that he is entitled for half share in that half share of his mother in this property and therefore its inclusion is necessary in the plaint schedule as a divisible item. 8. The first respondent resisted mainly contending that the petitioner has clearly stated in his plaint that there are no other properties held by his father except the schedule properties and therefore, requesting amendment of the plaint to include ‘F’ schedule property is contrary to the pleadings set up in the plaint. She further contended that the petitioner did not have any right to the property proposed to be added, since he had already executed a registered settlement deed on 10.05.2010 in favour of his father, upon receiving money, relinquishing his rights. Thus, she stated that she is the absolute owner of this property, which was acquired by her parents. Referring to a registered Will executed by her father in her favour on 15.12.2010 bequeathing his half share in the plaint schedule properties, she further stated that her mother also executed a registered Will on 15.12.2010 in a sound and disposing state of mind giving away remaining half in this property. Thus she claimed her right, title and interest to the property in ‘F’ schedule. 9. On the material and considering the contentions of the parties, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition for amendment of the petition accepting the contention of the 1st respondent, mainly on the ground that there is failure on the part of the petitioner to account for due diligence in coming up with such a petition for amendment at a belated stage, after commencement of trial. 10. 10. Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the facts, circumstances and nature of the claim set up by the petitioner, strenuously contended that upon coming to know that the 1st respondent secured certain documents from her mother, the petitioner came up with the proposed amendment and that there is no question of want of diligence on his part. It is further contended that addition of this property is necessary to have a complete adjudication of the matters in issue between the parties and therefore, the learned trial Judge should have permitted the same. 11. Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, contended with equal vehemence mainly pointing that there is hopeless want of diligence on the part of the petitioner in seeking the amendment at a highly belated stage in the suit. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that there is clear version of the petitioner in the plaint as well as the affidavit filed by him in support of the plaint that there are no other properties liable for partition in between these parties and if the present amendment is permitted, it amounts to not only introduction of new facts but also permitting departure from the earlier pleadings, which course is clearly impermissible. It is also contended that no foundational facts are available as seen from the affidavit of the petitioner explaining the necessity to come up with this amendment after commencement of the trial making out that there was no want of diligence and hence, it is contended that the learned trial Judge is justified in passing such an order. Thus supporting the order under revision, learned counsel for the 1st respondent requested not to interfere with the same. 12. Now, the point for determination is: whether the proposed amendment to include ‘F’ schedule property be permitted and if the order of the learned trial Judge is justified? POINT: 13. The amendment of the plaint is sought when trial has already commenced and when it is coming up for evidence of the respondents. The objection of the 1st respondent is mainly based on application of proviso to Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC. 14. Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC reads as under: “17. POINT: 13. The amendment of the plaint is sought when trial has already commenced and when it is coming up for evidence of the respondents. The objection of the 1st respondent is mainly based on application of proviso to Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC. 14. Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC reads as under: “17. 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.” 15. The effect of the same and permissible nature of the amendment of the pleadings are considered in Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs. Roop Rani Mehra, AIR 2017 SC 5822 . Reference is made in the above decision, to Chander Kanta Bansal vs. Rajinder Singh Anand, 2008 (5) SCC 117 . In Para 14 it is observed as under: “14. This Court in Chander Kanta Bansal vs. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117 has noted the object and purpose of amendment made in 2002. In Para 13, following has been held: 13. The entire object of the said amendment is to stall filing of applications for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and the parties had sufficient knowledge of the others case. It also helps in checking the delays in filing the applications. Once, the trial commences on the known pleas, it will be very difficult for any side to reconcile. In spite of the same, an exception is made in the newly inserted proviso where it is shown that in spite of due diligence, he could not raise a plea, it is for the court to consider the same. Therefore, it is not a complete bar nor shuts out entertaining of any later application. As stated earlier, the reason for adding proviso is to curtail delay and expedite hearing of cases.” 16. Therefore, it is not a complete bar nor shuts out entertaining of any later application. As stated earlier, the reason for adding proviso is to curtail delay and expedite hearing of cases.” 16. This ruling also considered certain basic principles relating to amendments and parameters within which, permission to amend the pleadings could be granted in Para 19 referring to Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors. Vs. Nandram (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. 2015 (13) SCC 132 : “19. While considering the prayer of amendment of the pleadings by a party, this Court in the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi and Ors. v. Nandram (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Ors. (2015) 13 SCC 132 has again reiterated the basic principles, which are to be kept in mind while considering such applications in Paragraphs 20, 21 and 22, which is quoted as below: 20. It is well settled that Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of Rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost. 21. In our view, since the Appellant sought amendment in Para 3 of the original plaint, the High Court ought not to have rejected the application. 22. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, this Court held that the power to grant amendment to pleadings is intended to serve the needs of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.” 17. A reference is also made for the petitioner contending that in the suit for partition amendment should be liberally permitted relying upon Putchala Ram Reddy Vs. Putchala Srinivas Reddy and Ors. 2019 (3) ALD 359 In Para 11 of this ruling of erstwhile High court of A.P. at Hyderabad, it is observed as under: “11. A reference is also made for the petitioner contending that in the suit for partition amendment should be liberally permitted relying upon Putchala Ram Reddy Vs. Putchala Srinivas Reddy and Ors. 2019 (3) ALD 359 In Para 11 of this ruling of erstwhile High court of A.P. at Hyderabad, it is observed as under: “11. Further, one should not loose sight of the fact that the suit is filed seeking for partition of the ancestral property in which event, the ancestral property is required to be the subject matter of the partition and what all the petitioner is seeking is to add two paragraphs without even change in the prayer. There may be any number of properties to be divided, so far as the adjudication is concerned, it would not make much of a difference......” 18. On behalf of the 1st respondent, in the same context, pointing out effect of proviso to Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC, reliance is placed in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, 2007 (2) ALD 93 (SC). In the given facts and circumstances, in para-52 of this ruling it is stated as under: “52. We have carefully perused the pleadings and grounds which are raised in the amendment application preferred by the appellants at Ex. 95. No facts are pleaded nor any grounds are raised in the amendment application to even remotely contend that despite exercise of due diligence these matters could not be raised by the appellants. Under these circumstances, the case is covered by proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 and, therefore, the relief deserves to be denied.......” 19. Further reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in this respect in Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) through LRs. Vs. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and another, (2008) 14 SCC 364 . In Paras 12 and 13 of this ruling, it is observed referring to scope and ambit of Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC as under: “12. In order to consider whether the appellant/plaintiff has made out a case for amendment of his plaint, it is useful to refer Order VI Rule 17 CPC which reads as under: 17. In Paras 12 and 13 of this ruling, it is observed referring to scope and ambit of Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC as under: “12. In order to consider whether the appellant/plaintiff has made out a case for amendment of his plaint, it is useful to refer Order VI Rule 17 CPC which reads as under: 17. 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. The first part of the rule makes it abundantly clear that at any stage of the proceedings, parties are free to alter or amend their pleadings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. However, this rule is subject to proviso appended therein. The said rule with proviso again substituted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01.07.2002 makes it clear that after the commencement of the trial, no application for amendment shall be allowed. However, if the parties to the proceedings able to satisfy the court that in spite of due diligence they could not raise the issue before the commencement of trial and the court is satisfied with their explanation, amendment can be allowed even after commencement of the trial. 13. To put it clear, Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso.” 20. Thus being the legal position in considering application of Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC at a stage which facts and circumstances in this case point out, it has to be examined whether claim of the petitioner is meeting these requirements. 21. A careful examination of the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of the petition in the trial Court explicitly did not refer to the facts and circumstances that drove him to seek such an amendment. It should also be borne in mind in the same context that the counter filed by the 1st respondent in the trial Court also did not set out in clear terms that there is want of diligence in seeking such an amendment. 22. But, as already referred supra, the contentions of the petitioner as also reflected from the averments in his affidavit are setting out the back ground, which persuaded him to seek such an amendment. He clearly averred that the property stated in ‘F’ schedule was settled under registered deed on 10.06.1975 in his favour by his father and also explaining the circumstances under which he executed a settlement deed in favour of his father while going abroad. (The date of this settlement deed is stated by the petitioner as 10.05.2000 and the 1st respondent refers it as 10.05.2010). The averments further give an impression that the petitioner felt that this property absolutely belonged to him and that upon coming to know that the 1st respondent has claimed this property from their mother, he sought inclusion of ‘F’ schedule property, as a part of the plaint schedule. 23. Thus, the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner indicate the circumstances under which he sought the present amendment. 24. 23. Thus, the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner indicate the circumstances under which he sought the present amendment. 24. The 1st respondent has set out her claim to this property, as an absolute owner being in possession and enjoyment as referred to supra by virtue of registered Will executed by her father on 15.12.2010 and a settlement deed on 27.07.2012 by her mother. Thus by virtue of these documents she claimed that she became the exclusive owner of this property. The contention so set up by the 1st respondent, infact touches upon the merits of the amendment and need not be considered at this stage. 25. Nonetheless, the effect of her claim referring to a settlement deed dated 27.7.2012 in her favour attributed to her mother in respect of half share in this property needs attention. The reason is that this document is a post-suit event and a subsequent development. The suit was instituted in the year 2011 and the transaction covering this settlement deed, thus came into being during pendency of the suit. 26. In the backdrop of these circumstances, the impression which the petitioner claimed that this property absolutely belonged to him gains importance. Thus, being under impression that this property belonged to him, he did not include it as a part of the plaint schedule. When the transactions affecting this property and his interest thereto, came to light later, on legal advice he sought to include this property as part of divisible estate of his late father. 27. In the light of these circumstances, though there is an averment in the plaint that there are no other properties left behind by the father of the petitioner for partition and division, it cannot have significant effect nor inclusion of this property by way of this amendment amounts to withdrawal of his stand in the plaint, bringing out a new case, amounting to departure from the earlier pleadings. 28. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent relied on Molli Eswara Rao v. Kurcha Chandra Rao, 2016 (3) ALD 510 in this respect. 28. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent relied on Molli Eswara Rao v. Kurcha Chandra Rao, 2016 (3) ALD 510 in this respect. In Para-6 of this ruling, it is stated as under: “Admittedly, the respondent herein filed the present application after commencement of trial and according to proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. it is incumbent and obligatory on the part of the person applying to show that despite exercising due diligence, such application could not be filed before commencement of trial. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, this Court does not find any such foundation laid by the respondent in the said direction and in the absence of compliance of such a statutory mandate, the application filed by the respondent cannot be maintained.” 29. Effect of these observations is canvassed on behalf of the 1st respondent requesting to reject the contention of the petitioner. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, when no such specific plea as to want of due diligence has been raised by the 1st respondent in her counter and when interests of justice in this case warrant permitting this amendment, on such a technical ground, the relief sought cannot be denied. Observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above in Mohinder Kumar Mehra, which are oft repeated that the procedure being handmaid of justice when applied, these technical requirements cannot hold a complete bar from exercising discretion to favour the amendment. 30. It is further to be noted that proviso to Order-VI, Rule-17 CPC did not impose a complete bar against the amendments. What all required is a reasonable explanation, demonstrative of due diligence on the part of the party seeking such amendment, in a bona fide attempt. Such expression shall be with reference to his inability to bring out such amendment before commencement of the trial. 31. In this context, learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that an amendment of this nature could have been brought immediately after filing the written statement by the 1st respondent, where she had clearly referred to execution of the will by her father conferring a share in “F” schedule property. 31. In this context, learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that an amendment of this nature could have been brought immediately after filing the written statement by the 1st respondent, where she had clearly referred to execution of the will by her father conferring a share in “F” schedule property. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is no reference to this property in that Will and in the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that this fact is admitted in the cross-examination by the 1st respondent as DW-1 32. However, these questions clearly relate to disputed issues in between the parties, which need not be considered in this Civil Revision Petition. When the interests of justice warrant inclusion of this property for just determination in this suit, the objection so raised on behalf of the 1st respondent cannot have any effect. 33. The learned trial Judge did not consider the matter in proper perspective and was apparently carried away by the effect of proviso to Order-VI Rule-17 CPC, failing to appreciate the facts and circumstances surrounding its application. Therefore, the order under revision warrants interference. 34. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, order of the trial Judge in I.A. No. 630 of 2018 in O.S. No. 278 of 2011 dated 26.11.2018 stands set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner (plaintiff) to amend the plaint as sought. Needless to say that the 1st respondent and other respondents are entitled to file their additional written statements against the amendment so brought out to the plaint. There shall be no order as to costs. 35. As sequel thereto, all miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Interim Orders, if any, shall stand vacated.