ORDER : 1. The plaintiff in the suit filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dated 24.08.2019 of learned Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Court, Guntur in I.A.No.755 of 2019 in O.S.No.39 of 2011. 2. In this revision, the point raised and argued is that the learned trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in the manner that is expected to be exercised by law and failed to consider the application appropriately and went beyond the legal requirement and considered about merits of the matter and therefore, the order shall be upset. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.12, 16 and 19 made their submissions and other respondents did not appear and contest. 4. Therefore, the question that falls for consideration is : “Whether the learned trial Court committed error in exercising its jurisdiction and passed an infirm order requiring interference? 5. The controversy is about refusal of the trial Court in permitting the plaintiff to have the plaint amended in terms of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. Having lost the prayer, the plaintiff has come up with this revision. 6. O.S.No.39 of 2011 was filed by the sole plaintiff/revision petitioner as against 18 defendants. The suit is for partition of properties. Schedule is appended to the plaint showing immovable properties in item Nos.1 to 5. The prayers in the suit are : (a) for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 5 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and to deliver the same to the plaintiff. (b) to ascertain mesne profits on the plaint schedule properties on separate application. (c) to award costs. (d) to pass such other orders as are just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 7. The averments in the plaint are that Smt. Venkayamma and defendant No.1 are wife and husband and they begot children, who are daughters and sons. The plaintiff and defendant No.3 are the sons. Defendant No.2 and defendant No.4 are the daughters. It is stated that defendant No.1 inherited properties and he has been the kartha of the joint family and has been managing them. He was diverting the joint family funds into his real estate business and that was done without the consent or knowledge of remaining members of the joint family. Defendant No.2 and defendant No.4 are the daughters. It is stated that defendant No.1 inherited properties and he has been the kartha of the joint family and has been managing them. He was diverting the joint family funds into his real estate business and that was done without the consent or knowledge of remaining members of the joint family. Defendant No.1 in collusion with his friends and relations was diverting the funds of the joint family and utilizing the funds for his own personal needs and failed to take appropriate care of the other members of the joint family. That all the plaint schedule properties have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff attained majority during August, 2010 and came to know that defendant No.1 executed certain nominal and sham documents concerning joint family properties and they are prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff and other members of the joint family. Stating that those documents executed by defendant No.1 do not bind the plaintiff and other members of the joint family, the suit is laid seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties into five parts and grant one share to the plaintiff. 8. The above referred contents of the plaint would at once indicate that while the joint family consists of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 alone, it is totally devoid of any averment as to who defendant Nos.5 to 18 are. While the plaint speaks about defendant No.1 executing sham and nominal documents alienating the plaint schedule properties no particular date, time or the nature of the document is indicated. Why defendant Nos.5 to 18 are added cannot be seen from the plaint at all. It seems that during pendency of the suit the plaintiff did not choose to prosecute the suit as against defendant Nos.8 and 9 and got the suit dismissed as not pressed as against those two of them. 9. Trial in the suit commenced and it was coming up for the evidence on behalf of defendant No.5. The plaintiff had moved I.A.No.755 of 2019 in O.S.No.39 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to amend the plaint. 9. Trial in the suit commenced and it was coming up for the evidence on behalf of defendant No.5. The plaintiff had moved I.A.No.755 of 2019 in O.S.No.39 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to amend the plaint. In the said application is supported by an affidavit and it also contains the consequential amendments that need be carried out in the event the application for amendment of plaint is allowed. When that application was taken up by the learned trial Court for enquiry, it seems that none of the respondents filed any counter. Thus, there was no opposition as against the petition for amendment. The learned trial Court heard the learned counsel on both sides and passed the impugned order whereunder it refused to permit the amendments in the plaint and dismissed the petition. It is that order which is challenged in this revision. 10. A reading of the application for amendment in I.A.No.755 of 2019 and the impugned order would indicate that the proposed amendments could be appreciated under four different heads. 11. The plaint schedule for item No.2 and item No.3 there is a prayer made in para No.5 of I.A.No.755 of 2019. There it is mentioned that out of oversight the description of these two items were wrongly made in the plaint and they require correction. It is stated that in the plaint item No.2 is described as the property in an extent of Ac.1.46 cents. That is incorrect and the accurate extent of the land is Ac.1.58 cents. For item No.3 of the plaint schedule, it is mentioned that in the plaint schedule it is mentioned as D.No.221/B in an extent of Ac.0.87 cents. That is incorrect and the correct description is D.No.213/A in an extent of Ac.0.82 cents. The reason assigned in the petition is that it was out of oversight these mistakes crept in and they may be permitted to be corrected. As stated earlier on this aspect of the matter no contest on facts came up before the learned trial Court. This part of the proposed amendment was declined by the learned trial Court on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff since claimed to have been in joint possession of these properties, there was no possibility to commit a mistake on his part and therefore, his prayer for amendment was refused. 12. This part of the proposed amendment was declined by the learned trial Court on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff since claimed to have been in joint possession of these properties, there was no possibility to commit a mistake on his part and therefore, his prayer for amendment was refused. 12. At para No.6 of the petition in I.A.No.755 of 2019, the petitioner mentioned that the joint family also owned ancestral house properties and by oversight and mistake they were not included in the plaint schedule and they may now be added as item Nos.6 and 7 in the plaint schedule and gave description of the properties of the proposed item Nos.6 and 7. It seems that in the written statement filed by defendant No.3 such omission was pointed out. This part of the prayer was also refused by the learned trial Court on the ground that there is no averment that these two proposed items are also in joint possession and enjoyment of the joint family members. 13. The suit is filed for partitioning the joint family properties. Law expects all the properties of the joint family shall be brought at once for adjudication so that the controversy among members of the joint family could be resolved at once. Partitioning only some of the properties is not advised in many cases. A suit for partition also indicates the desire to have the properties belonging to the joint family partitioned. If there is mis-description concerning the properties it would not help anyone and on the other hand, it would lead to complex circumstances effecting the rights of others, who are not parties to the suit also. As and when parties realized that the immovable properties are incorrectly described either with reference to their existence or with reference to their door number, the same has to be corrected in the pleadings. The real controversy between parties is whether the properties claimed by the plaintiff are joint family properties or not and whether they were available for partition or not. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, the power is hedged saying that the amendments are expected to be completed before commencement of trial. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, the power is hedged saying that the amendments are expected to be completed before commencement of trial. Amendments subsequent to commencement of trial could also be granted if the Court is of the opinion that despite due diligence the party could not raise such amendments earlier to the commencement of trial. On these basic principles both sides did not hold any disagreement. Viewed from that perspective the corrections in the description of item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule and the addition of item Nos.6 and 7 to the plaint schedule would certainly help the trial Court in determining the real questions in controversy in a very appropriate manner. As long as the proposed item Nos.6 and 7 are claimed to be properties of the joint family and as long as the existing plaint items indicate an assertion of the plaintiff that the members of the joint family have been in possession and enjoyment of the joint family properties, the trial Court ought to have allowed these parts of the proposed amendments. Failure on its part in exercising its jurisdiction is very much clear and that led to an infirm order to the extent indicated above. Therefore, that part of the order of the trial Court is set aside. The revision petitioner/plaintiff must be permitted to carry out corrections in item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule and bring on record item Nos.6 and 7 in the plaint schedule. 14. This revision petitioner in I.A.No.755 of 2019 at para No.3 mentioned that Smt. U. Pitchamma is his paternal grandmother and she had executed a Will dated 15.02.2007 and under that Will she bequeathed remaining plots in D.Nos.221/A and 221/B and joint share in item Nos.1, 3 and 5 to the petitioner and his brother. The revision petitioner wants this assertion to be brought on record by amending his plaint. Learned trial Court refused this prayer stating that on 31.01.2017 this petitioner was subjected to cross-examination wherein he disclosed about his full knowledge of the alleged Will. By the time the suit was filed in the year 2011 itself the petitioner knew about this Will. The revision petitioner wants this assertion to be brought on record by amending his plaint. Learned trial Court refused this prayer stating that on 31.01.2017 this petitioner was subjected to cross-examination wherein he disclosed about his full knowledge of the alleged Will. By the time the suit was filed in the year 2011 itself the petitioner knew about this Will. Since the petitioner failed to explain why he did not incorporate necessary pleadings in the original plaint and why he did not choose to bring in any particular item by virtue of the Will till the year 2019, it thought that on the principle of absence of diligence, the prayer should be refused. Though this aspect of the matter is challenged in this revision, the learned counsel for revision petitioner failed to show how this proposed amendment is going to help the trial Court in deciding the real controversy between the parties. Be it noted the suit is not filed for anything that was allegedly received by the petitioner under bequest of his grandmother. The entire plaint indicates the male lenial discendancy and the concept of the joint family and it has not mentioned any other properties. Therefore, if the petitioner gained any other property through the Will, that could not be the subject matter of the suit. Besides that the petitioner had full knowledge of a Will in his favour in the year 2007 itself and when he filed the suit in the year 2011, he ought to have mentioned it and at least just before the commencement of trial or at least soon after commencement of trial. He did nothing. Against his own sworn evidence the petitioner states in his petition that he came to know about the Will very recently. That is a vague statement since he did not even choose to mention the day or at least the period as to when he came to know about this Will. At any rate it is rightly pointed out by the learned trial Court that knowledge of this Will was spoken out by this very person on 31.01.2017 and even thereafter he did not take steps to have the plaint amended. Thus, on the test of absence of due diligence when the trial Court refused to grant permission to amend the plaint this Court finds no perversity in the order of the trial Court. Thus, on the test of absence of due diligence when the trial Court refused to grant permission to amend the plaint this Court finds no perversity in the order of the trial Court. Added to what the trial Court said it may be recorded that the revision petitioner completely failed to address the point as to how the bequest through a Will is a matter that is relevant for consideration at the trial concerning division of joint family properties. Therefore, that part of the order of the trial Court is confirmed. 15. Para No.4 of the petition in I.A.No.755 of 2019 narrates about various conveyances said to have been executed by defendant No.1 in the years 1992, 1993, 1999, 2002 and 2003 in favour of defendant Nos.5, 6, 10, 12, 15 and 16 concerning certain parts of item No.4 of the suit schedule. He mentions that only recently he came to know about these alienations. Adverting to this aspect of the matter the learned trial Court mentioned that this petitioner claimed in the plaint that all the joint family properties have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and paid fixed court fee under Section 34(1) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and purposefully omitted to make any averment in the original plaint as to why defendant Nos.5 to 18 were added as parties and purposefully waited till the fag end of the trial and now to stall the proceedings has come up with this application. Thus, it was the opinion of the trial Court that there was ouster and the petitioner concealed it. Trial Court also refused to grant the amendment on the point of absence of due diligence. It is this aspect of the matter that is challenged in this revision. It is for the revision petitioner to convince this Court as to how in the above referred facts and circumstances it should be considered that the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. Except stating that no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party nothing that is relevant under law is argued. 16. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cited Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341 . Except stating that no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party nothing that is relevant under law is argued. 16. Learned counsel for revision petitioner cited Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341 . At para No.10 of the said judgment their Lordships have held that if an application for amendment is made after the commencement of the trial, the same could be allowed only if the Court is able to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. At para No.13 of the judgment their Lordships held that the proposed amendment in that case was concerning the additional relief of cancellation of sale deeds and since that prayer was not barred by time/limitation by the time the amendment was proposed their Lordships were pleased to grant the relief. Learned counsel for petitioner also cited Gurbakhsh Singh v. Buta Singh, (2018) 6 SCC 567 . That was a case where the amendments were necessitated because the particular record of the suit could not be traced by the Courts and that hindered the party from taking appropriate pleadings at an appropriate time (para No.5). It was in these factual circumstances, their Lordships were pleased to allow the application. 17. As against that, learned counsel for respondent Nos.12, 16 and 19 cited Bhulakshmi v. S.S. Valli (C.R.P.No.450 of 2019), wherein this Court at para No.5 considered whether an excuse in the petition that it was out of oversight the proposed pleadings were not made is a sufficient justification to allow the amendment. This Court stated that, that was hardly any reason and did not allow the prayed amendment. At para No.9 this Court on relying the precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court stated that unless the proposed amendment is imperative for proper and effective adjudication, the amendment cannot be allowed. 18. Having considered the ratio in the above judgments and on considering the facts on record and the failure of the petitioner in making out any argument as to how the approach of the trial Court is erroneous, this Court considers that in the given facts and circumstances the learned trial Court properly exercised its jurisdiction and there is nothing to interfere to the extent of this above referred proposed amendment. 19. 19. From the discussion made above, it is clear that out of four proposed amendments two of them could be admitted as indicted in the order. The rest of the order of the trial Court shall be confirmed. Point is answered accordingly. 20. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part. The revision petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to carry out corrections in item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint schedule and bring on record item Nos.6 and 7 in the plaint schedule. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. At the time of pronouncing the order, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that O.S.No.39 of 2011 from which this revision came up was disposed of by the learned trial Court by a judgment dated 01.11.2022 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/revision petitioner and therefore this revision became infructuous. Photostat copy of that judgment of the trial Court is filed and the same is placed in the record. 22. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.