ORDER : S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. 1. Plaintiff no.2(a) is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12.08.2022 passed in O.S.No.6463 of 1991 by the Court of XLII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Suit in O.S.No.6463 of 1991 is filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and also for mesne profits. The contesting defendants have filed written statement opposing the suit claim. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff no.2 Smt Gowramma had died. I.A.No.LXII was filed by her daughters to permit them to come on record as her legal representatives and prosecute the suit on the strength of the last Will dated 25.01.2014 executed by deceased plaintiff no.2. The trial Court vide the impugned order dated 20.02.2018 had allowed I.A.No.XLII with an observation that the claim of the applicants in I.A.No.XLII over the suit schedule property on the basis of the Will can be considered along with the merits of the suit. Subsequently, I.A.No.LXX has been filed on behalf of the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff no.2 with a prayer to permit them to amend the plaint. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objection. The trial Court, vide the order impugned dated 12.08.2022, has partly allowed I.A.No.LXX and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner who is one of the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff no.2 - Smt Gowramma, is before this Court. 4. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, I.A.No.XLII was filed by the daughters of deceased plaintiff no.2 to permit them to come on record as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff no.2 on the strength of the last Will dated 25.01.2014 said to have been executed by her. Considering the fact that deceased plaintiff no.2 had six daughters and two sons, trial Court had initially ordered to hold an inquiry on I.A.No.XLII. Considering the fact that deceased plaintiff no.2 had six daughters and two sons, trial Court had initially ordered to hold an inquiry on I.A.No.XLII. Subsequently, based on the submissions made by the parties to the suit and also taking into consideration the nature of the suit, applicants in I.A.No.XLII were permitted to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff no.2 with an observation that their claim over the suit schedule property on the basis of the Will can be considered along with the merits of the suit. 5. I.A.No.LXX is now filed on behalf of the applicants in I.A.No.XLII, who are brought on record as the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff no.2, seeking permission to amend the plaint by incorporating paragraph Nos.6A and 6B in the plaint. In the proposed paragraph No.6A, the applicants have narrated about the execution of the last Will by plaintiff no.2, registration of the same and exclusion of the sons of deceased plaintiff no.2 in the Will. In the proposed paragraph No.6B the subsequent events wherein defendant nos.13 and 14 have violated the interim order of temporary injunction granted in the suit, developed Item Nos.7 and 10 of the suit schedule property and thereby allegedly earned huge profits which is far in excess of their legitimate share in the schedule property is sought to be introduced. 6. In addition to the aforesaid, a prayer is also made to substitute certain words found in Item No.6 of the suit schedule property and to introduce certain words found in Item No.6 of the suit schedule property. The said prayer was allowed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. In addition to the aforesaid amendment, the applicants also have sought to include an additional prayer to allot the share of deceased plaintiff no.2 in their favour in exclusion of defendant nos.11 and 12, who are their brothers. In my considered opinion, the proposed amendments does not change the nature of the suit or the cause of action for the suit. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1128 has held that the Court should be normally liberal, while considering an application for amendment of the pleadings in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. - (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1128 has held that the Court should be normally liberal, while considering an application for amendment of the pleadings in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It is also held in the said case that the Courts must avoid hyper technical approach while considering an application seeking amendment of pleadings. 8. The suit is of the year 1991. Therefore, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC would not be made applicable to the present case in view of the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of HI SHEET INDUSTRIES V LITELON LIMITED - (2006) 5 CTC 609 . 9. From a perusal of the averments found in the proposed amendment, it is clear that the other side will not be put to any hardship, if the prayer made in the application is allowed and on the other hand, if the prayer made in the application is rejected, the case of the applicants in the IA is likely to be prejudiced. The suit is of the year 1991 and because of the belated application if any inconvenience is caused to the contesting defendants, it can be compensated by imposing appropriate cost on the applicants in I.A.No.LXX. 10. Accordingly the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.08.2022 passed in O.S.No.6463 of 1991 by the Court of XLII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is set aside and consequently the prayer made in I.A.No.LXX is granted. (iii) The cost imposed by this Court shall be paid by the applicants in I.A.No.LXX to the contesting defendants before the trial Court on the next date of hearing. (iv) Since the suit is of the year 1991, the trial Court shall make endeavours to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit, on merits, at the earliest. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of.