JUDGMENT : ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dismissing the suit for mandatory injunction. The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction against the private individuals and the Banks. Suit is filed for relief of injunction to restrain defendants No.3 to 7 (Banks) from operating the Bank account standing in the name of deceased B.N.Maheshwari Madhusudhan and also to restrain the individual defendants from removing the gold ornaments kept in the safe deposit lockers in the aforementioned Banks in the name of deceased B.N.Maheshwari Madhusudhan. 2. The suit is dismissed on the premise that the details of the Bank lockers and the Savings Bank accounts are also not furnished. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, inviting the attention of the Court to the facts of the case would submit that earlier, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S. No.7874/2001 for partition against her father, mother, brother and sister. Said suit was dismissed on the premise that the suit is not maintainable when the father is alive and later an appeal was filed. During the pendency of appeal in RFA No.583/2009, father died and the Court awarded share taking into consideration, the subsequent development after the filing of the suit. Later, in final decree proceeding in FDP No.104/2015, the parties entered into settlement in respect of the properties held by the father. 4. There was no partition in respect to the properties held by the mother. Thereafter, the mother died and the daughter/plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction to restrain the brother and sister from operating the account held by the mother. 5. The suit is dismissed on the premise that the plaintiff has not furnished the details of the Bank account and the locker account held by the mother and application is filed before this Court to amend the plaint and to seek relief of partition in respect of the properties standing in the name of the mother. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents would submit that no account and no locker existed in the name of the mother as such, the suit is not maintainable and Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit for want of necessary particulars. 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents would submit that no account and no locker existed in the name of the mother as such, the suit is not maintainable and Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit for want of necessary particulars. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants/respondents would also oppose the application seeking amendment on the premise that the relief sought is time barred and it would change the nature of the suit and amendment application at this stage is not maintainable. 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. Following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit for want of particulars when the Banks are made parties to the proceeding? (ii) Whether the appellant has made out a case to amend the plaint and to seek a relief of partition in a suit for injunction? 10. It is not in dispute that plaintiff is daughter of B.N.Maheshwari Madhusudhan, and said B.N.Maheshwari Madhusudhan died intestate. The plaintiff has filed suit for injunction on the apprehension that her brother and sister would operate the locker and the Bank account of her mother and accordingly brother and sister are made parties. In addition, the Banks are also made parties. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the premise that particulars of the Bank accounts are not furnished. 11. The Court is of view that the approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. Since the Banks are parties to the proceeding and represented by the counsel, the Court should ascertain as to whether the accounts/ lockers are held in the name of late B.N.Maheshwari Madhusudhan, and if so, the Court should have secured the details. That is not done. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has now filed an application for amendment of the plaint and seeks relief of partition. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposing amendment has urged the ground of limitation and would also urge that amendment if permitted would change the nature of the suit. 14. The application for amendment of the plaint can be allowed even after the commencement of trial and even in the first appeal or the second appeal, provided a case is made out to grant amendment. One of the primary purposes of amendment is to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 15. 14. The application for amendment of the plaint can be allowed even after the commencement of trial and even in the first appeal or the second appeal, provided a case is made out to grant amendment. One of the primary purposes of amendment is to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 15. The question that needs to be asked is; if the amendment is rejected whether the plaintiff can file another suit for partition. In the present case, in case the amendment is rejected, the plaintiff will not be precluded from filing a suit for partition and separate possession, provided the mother has left behind the property. 16. Under these circumstances, though the application in case allowed amounts to change of nature of the suit, the Court is of the view that amendment is necessary for adjudication of all the controversies between the parties. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that amendment application has to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed. 18. The matter requires to be remanded to the Trial Court to frame an additional issue after permitting the defendants to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. 19. The Trial Court shall also issue notice to the defendant-Banks to produce the details of the Bank accounts/locker accounts or any other account in the name of B.N.Maheshwari Madhusudan, the mother of the plaintiff and if such details are furnished, then the Court shall permit the parties to make necessary amendments in respective pleadings and thereafter, the evidence shall be recorded and the suit shall be decided on merits. 20. Hence the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 12.07.2019 on the file of VII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.3231/2017 are set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. (iv) The Trial Court shall permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint. The plaintiff shall furnish the amended plaint. The defendants are permitted to file additional written statement. (v) Issue shall be framed based on additional written statement and thereafter, the parties shall be permitted to lead evidence. (vi) Application for production of document is not required to be allowed at this stage as the Court is of the view that the said document is not necessary at this juncture. (v) Issue shall be framed based on additional written statement and thereafter, the parties shall be permitted to lead evidence. (vi) Application for production of document is not required to be allowed at this stage as the Court is of the view that the said document is not necessary at this juncture. (vii) In case the parties intend to produce the additional documents before the Trial Court, same shall be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of and I.A.No.2/2025 is allowed. (viii) Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 02.02.2026 without any further notice. (ix) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter.