ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. The unsuccessful petitioner/plaintiff in I.A. No. 210 of 2025 in O.S. No. 42 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mancherial, filed this revision. 2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the Suit. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of Schedule A to G of property, claiming that all the properties are joint family properties inherited from his father. When the matter was posted for defendants' further evidence, plaintiff had taken out the subject I.A. under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to permit him amend the plaint by including Schedule-H property along all the consequential amendments. 3.1. The plea of plaintiff is that he obtained knowledge and possession of documents relating to land in Survey No 72/97/1 admeasuring Acs.5.00 situated at Naspur Revenue Village, Mancherial and the said property was originally held by his father and subsequently mutated in the name of his mother- Defendant No.1 and the said property was inadvertently omitted in the original plaint schedule and now he secured the relevant pahani records which reflects transfer of property in his mother’s name. Defendant No.1 contested the I.A. stating that plaintiff in his cross-examination as PW-1 on 05.12.2018 admitted that "our father owns Acs. 5-00 in Survey No. 72 of Naspur. As I do not want share in it, it is not included in the present suit schedule property, but it is mentioned in the plaint’. Therefore, it is not correct to say that plaintiff has come to know of the property recently. It is also contended that if the IA is allowed it leads to conducting de novo trial. 4. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties and considering the relevant provisions, dismissed the I.A. by order under Revision dated 17.10.2025 holding that there are no valid reasons to extend a helping hand to plaintiff in permitting him to amend the plaint. If the contentions of plaintiff are considered, the rights of defendants would be affected. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner / plaintiff Sri M.R.S. Srinivas submits that the trial Court failed to understand the scope and significance of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and its applicability. The contention of plaintiff regarding lack of custody of documents was not considered. If the contentions of plaintiff are considered, the rights of defendants would be affected. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner / plaintiff Sri M.R.S. Srinivas submits that the trial Court failed to understand the scope and significance of Order VI Rule 17 CPC and its applicability. The contention of plaintiff regarding lack of custody of documents was not considered. According to learned counsel, plaint can be amended even after passing a preliminary decree in a suit for partition, as the suit for partition does not stand disposed of with passing of a preliminary decree alone, which is nothing but an interim decree. Suit for partition is for comprehensive relief to resolve a dispute in family, hence plaint can be amended at any stage of proceedings. 5.1. Learned counsel submits that procedural law should not defeat substantial rights of parties. If any joint family property is sold by one sharer, it is not binding upon the plaintiff. The trial Court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment neither changes the nature of suit nor cause of action. 6. Heard Sri Rajasripathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents - defendants. 7. Before considering the contentions of both the parties, it is relevant to extract Order VI Rule17 CPC. It reads thus: “ Amendment of pleadings. [Substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, Section 7, for rule 17 (w.e.f. 1.7.2002).) -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”. 8. Order VI Rule 17 deals with amendment of pleadings in a civil case. It is a crucial tool to correct any mistakes or errors in the pleadings and introduce new facts and arguments in the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has set a precedent on this provision in recent years, which clarified the scope and application of the Rule. It is a crucial tool to correct any mistakes or errors in the pleadings and introduce new facts and arguments in the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has set a precedent on this provision in recent years, which clarified the scope and application of the Rule. In this connection, it is important and necessary to examine the key provisions of Order VI Rule 17 and discuss some of the important judgments. 9. Order VI Rule 17 allows a party to amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings in a civil case. It is designed to ensure that the real issues in the case are determined and that justice is done to the parties. The rule is flexible and liberal, allowing parties to correct mistakes and introduce new facts and arguments in the case, subject to the requirement that it does not unfairly prejudice the other party. Its scope and application has been clarified by several important judgments of the Supreme Court of India. 10. The key ingredients are: 1. Amendment of pleadings: The provision allows a party to amend their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings in a civil case. 2. Liberal approach: The rule is designed to adopt a liberal and flexible approach towards amendments of pleadings to ensure that real issues are determined and justice is done between the parties. 3. Fairness: The provision requires that any amendment to pleadings does not unfairly prejudice the other party. 4. Conditions on amendments: The court may impose conditions on the amendment, such as costs or an adjournment, to ensure that the other party is not unfairly prejudiced. 5. Mala fide amendments not allowed: The court will not allow an amendment that is mala fide or designed to delay or harass the other party. 6. Consideration of nature of amendment, reason for delay and prejudice to the other party: The nature of the amendment, the reason for the delay in seeking the amendment, and the prejudice that the other party is likely to suffer as a result of the amendment should be considered by the court. 11. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC can be used in various situations in civil cases, such as: 1. Adding parties: A party can seek to add a new party to the case if it is necessary to determine the real issues in dispute. 2. 11. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC can be used in various situations in civil cases, such as: 1. Adding parties: A party can seek to add a new party to the case if it is necessary to determine the real issues in dispute. 2. Adding claims or defenses: A party can seek to add new claims or defenses to their pleadings if they were not included initially or if new facts or circumstances have arisen. 3. Correcting errors: A party can seek to correct any errors or mistakes in their pleadings, such as typographical errors or mistakes in the legal description of a property. 4. Removing superfluous matter: A party can seek to remove any superfluous or irrelevant matter from their pleadings. 5. Clarifying existing pleadings: A party can seek to clarify or amplify existing pleadings to make their case more understandable or to provide additional details. 6. Substituting parties: A party can seek to substitute a new party in place of an existing party, such as when a party dies or becomes incapacitated during the case. In all of these situations, the Court will consider whether amendment is necessary for proper determination of case and whether it will unfairly prejudice the other party. 12. While seeking to amend pleadings, under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, there are several technicalities that need to be considered: 1. Timing: Amendment should be sought at the earliest possible opportunity and before the case has progressed too far. 2. Nature of amendment: The nature of the amendment should be considered to determine whether it is a mere technical or formal amendment, or whether it is a substantive amendment that introduces new facts or arguments. 3. Reason for delay: If the amendment is sought after a significant delay, the court will consider the reason for the delay and whether it is justified. 4. Prejudice to other party: The court will consider whether the other party will be unfairly prejudiced by the amendment, such as if it would require a complete re-opening of the case. 5. Compliance with court procedures: The amendment must comply with the court's procedures for filing and serving pleadings. 6. Payment of costs: The court may require the party seeking the amendment to pay the costs of the other party if the amendment is allowed. 13. 5. Compliance with court procedures: The amendment must comply with the court's procedures for filing and serving pleadings. 6. Payment of costs: The court may require the party seeking the amendment to pay the costs of the other party if the amendment is allowed. 13. In the light of the above, it is to be seen, admittedly, plaintiff filed the suit for partition of Schedules A to G. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his father owns Acs. 5-00 in Survey No. 72 of Naspur, but he does not want share in it hence the said property is not included in the present suit schedule property. It clearly demonstrates knowledge of plaintiff about the land in Survey No. 72 of Naspur. Therefore, his contention that recently he got knowledge of the same is not acceptable. 14. It is the duty of plaintiff to be vigilant while he is agitating his rights - vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveiunt (equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering). Hence, plaintiff has to blame himself for not including land in Survey No. 72 of Naspur in the schedule of properties in spite of his knowledge about it. It is to be reminded that normally, no Application for amendment shall be allowed after trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the plea. In the case on hand, his admission in the cross-examination goes to show his knowledge of the land in Survey No. 72 of Naspur. Therefore, it cannot be said that in spite of due diligence, he could not have included this property in the plaint schedule properties. 15. From a plain reading of the Provision, it is clear that it consists of two parts: Whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the Court to order amendment of pleading; the second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the Court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Here, issues were already settled; trial commenced - evidence on behalf of plaintiff is closed and evidence of defendants is in progress. Here, issues were already settled; trial commenced - evidence on behalf of plaintiff is closed and evidence of defendants is in progress. If the current amendment is allowed, defendants have to be given an opportunity to file additional written statement; additional issues have to be framed; plaintiff's witnesses are to be called for re-cross-examination. This amendment is no way necessary for determination of issues already framed and settled. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner - plaintiff to substantiate their ground of revision, placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil , AIR 1957 SC 363 , Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Guragaon , (1969) 1 SCC 869 , Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi , (2006)4 SCC 385 , North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead) by LRs. , (2008) 8 SCC 511 , Smt. Waheeda Begum v. Md. Yakub , 2014 SCC OnLine AP 26 Mahila Ramkali Devi v. Nandram (Died) through legal representatives , (2015) 13 SCC 132 ; LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd. , (2022) 16 SCC 1 ; B.R. Patil v Tulsa Y. Sawkar , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 240 ; Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615 , Pitta Samadana Swarooparani v. Pitta Kumari , 2025 Law Suit (AP) 159 17. The above referred cases highlight the general principle of allowing amendment to the plaint u/Order VI Rule 17 CPC to determine the real issues in dispute without unfairly prejudicing the other party, if the ingredients for allowing amendment of petition exist. 18. As stated above, plaintiff is well aware of the land of Ac.5-00 in Sy.No. 72 of Naspur and for the reasons best known to him, he did not include it in the schedule of properties for which he is seeking partition and separate possession. admitted in his cross-examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that plaintiff has come to know of this property now and hence seeking amendment of plaintiff. Further trial of the case started long back, evidence of plaintiff is closed and evidence of defendants is in progress. If the amendment to plaint is allowed at this stage, it will tantamount to de novo trial. Already the suit is of 14 years old. Further trial of the case started long back, evidence of plaintiff is closed and evidence of defendants is in progress. If the amendment to plaint is allowed at this stage, it will tantamount to de novo trial. Already the suit is of 14 years old. If the amendment is allowed and the trial is allowed to start again from the beginning by filing additional written statement; framing additional witness; re-calling the PWs for further cross-examination etc., one cannot say how much time it will take. Plaintiff failed to show any balance of conveyance and no grounds raised by plaintiff in this Revision are convincing. The Revision therefore, does not merit consideration. 19. For the above reasons, this Revision is dismissed. No costs. 20. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.