ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Puttur in I.A. No.119 of 2014 in O.S. No.76 of 2006 dated 15.10.2014, wherein and whereby, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking amendment of the plaint for adding some more items in the plaint schedule properties. 2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court in brief is that she filed suit for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in the plaint schedule properties against the respondents, wherein she has shown four (04) items of immovable properties and recently she came to know that R1 R2/D1 D2, purchased the property out of joint family income and filed petition to amend the plaint schedule property to include those properties. 3. The respondent filed a counter before the trial Court denying averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that 1st item of petition schedule property to an extent of Ac.2.55 cents in Sy. No.162/1C is the self-acquired property of respondent Nos.1 and 2, which they purchased under registered sale deed dated 08.08.1994 for valid consideration and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. They submit that the 2nd item of petition schedule property to an extent of 0.28 cents in Sy. No.182/7 is the self-acquired property of Mr Ramakrishnaiah, who purchased under registered sale deed dated 22.06.1997, which is the subject matter of appeal proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court and 3rd item of petition schedule property is site to an extent of Ac.0.02 11/12 cents in Sy. No.227, which is the property of respondent Nos.1 and 2, as they purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 11.04.1983 for valid consideration and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 4th item of petition schedule property to an extent of 0.05 cents in Sy. No.227 which is also purchased by respondent Nos.1 and 2, under registered sale deed dated 20.02.1982 and they have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The 4th item of petition schedule property to an extent of 0.05 cents in Sy. No.227 which is also purchased by respondent Nos.1 and 2, under registered sale deed dated 20.02.1982 and they have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. The respondents submits that as they worked in private companies, they purchased properties, out of their own income, which petitioner intended to include in the plaint schedule which is not permissible under law and the claim of the petitioner is also time barred. They pray to dismiss the petition. 4. After hearing both sides, learned trial judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner observing that the amendment which the petitioner sought is after the commencement of the trial and no reason is mentioned that in spite of her due diligence, petitioner could not sought for amendment, prior to the commencement of the trial. The learned trial Judge also relied on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2009 SC 1433 . 5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned trial judge, petitioner preferred the present Revision Petition stating that the order of the Court below is against the law probabilities of the case, which have to be set aside. She submits that trial Court ought to have seen that mere filing of the chief examination affidavit could not be treated as commencement of the trial. She prays to allow the petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the trial of the suit has not yet been commenced as petitioner filed her chief examination affidavit as PW-1, but no documents are marked. He would further submit that as petitioner came to know recently that respondent has purchased petition schedule properties, out of joint family income, she intended to add those items in the plaint schedule to avoid multiplicity of litigation. He would further submit that if petitioner is not allowed to amend her plaint which will cause prejudice to her contention and which may result in dismissal of the suit also, if she failed to sought for partition in respect of all joint family properties. He relied on following precedent law:- i. Brij Gopal Pallod and others Vs. Municipal Council rep by G. Vasudeva Reddy, Asst. He relied on following precedent law:- i. Brij Gopal Pallod and others Vs. Municipal Council rep by G. Vasudeva Reddy, Asst. Executive Engineer, Zaheerabad Municipality, Medak District, 2013 (2) ALT 353 ., wherein it is held that mere filing of affidavit in lieu of chief examination of a witness by itself cannot be treated as commencement of trial- if a witness has simply filed affidavit and cross-examination is not yet done or if that stage did not reach, it is difficult to infer that trial of the suit commenced. ii. Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others, (2009) 10 SCC 84 . 8. Now the point that emerges for consideration of this Court is:- “Whether the order under challenge is sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?” 9. Point :- Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which reads as under:- Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure:- “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.” 10. In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and ANR. case in Civil Appeal No.5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in para No.70 which reads as under:- “70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed. (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pinpointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)”. 11. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers case, (referred supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in which the Hon’ble Apex Court gave guidelines and principles to be considered while disposing the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of pleadings at para No.63 which reads as under:- 63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. (1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. 12. In the present case, petitioner has filed suit seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/5th share in the plaint schedule properties, wherein she also filed her chief examination affidavit as PW-1, but she has not yet affirmed her chief examination affidavit and no documents were marked by the time of filing petition seeking for amendment of the plaint. This Court in Brijgopal and others case (referred supra), relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner explained the stage of commencement of the trial and held that mere filing of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of witness is not amounts to commencement of the trial. Even otherwise, the nature of amendment, now the petitioner is seeking is to add some more properties which is said to be purchased by the respondents out of joint family nucleus. Whether those properties are self-acquired properties or joint family properties liable for partition can only be decided during the course of the trial and the learned trial Judge cannot reject the plea of the petitioner, only on the ground that proposed adding of properties in the plaint schedule properties said to be purchased by respondents long prior to filing of the suit. After considering the nature of the suit and admitted relationship between the parties, as plea of limitation is the mixed question of law and fact which can only be decided at the time of disposal of the main case, the learned trial judge ought not to have dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of plaint only on the ground that trial of the suit has been commenced. Though petitioner has filed PW-1 not affirmed her chief examination affidavit before the Court and no documents were marked on her behalf. It is no doubt true that there is a delay in seeking amendment of the plaint, though this suit is filed in the year 2006, the petition seeking for amendment is filed in the year 2014, for which any prejudice is caused to the respondent due to delay in seeking for amendment can be compensated by way of costs. The orders passed by the Court below are not sustainable either in law or on facts warrants interference of this Court invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The orders passed by the learned trial Judge in I.A. No.119 of 2014 in O.S. No.76 of 2006 are hereby set aside. The petition in I.A. No.119 of 2014 in O.S. No.76 of 2006 is hereby allowed, on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) to the respondent, on or before 16.06.2023. On such payment of costs by the petitioner to the respondent, the learned trial Judge shall permit the petitioner to amend her plaint by adding petition schedule properties in the plaint schedule. Thereafter, the respondents can have an opportunity of filing additional written statement, if any, by putting forth his defence. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit of the year 2006, as expeditiously as possible, within one year from the date of receipt of orders of this court. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. The interim stay, if any, granted, shall stand vacated.