ORDER : S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J. This petition by the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.446/2010 is directed against the impugned order dated 05.11.2025 whereby the application – I.A.No.XVIII filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.1 – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – defendant No.1 and other defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. The suit having been contested by the petitioner – defendant No.1, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence, at the stage of defendants’ evidence, plaintiff filed the instant application – I.A.No.XVIII seeking permission to amend the plaint by incorporating additional pleadings including additional properties as hereunder: “Under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code that for the reasons sworn to the accompanying affidavit, the above named plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint as detailed hereunder and dispose off the case on its merits, in the interest of justice, equity and law. Proposed Amendment: To incorporate para 7(b) in the plaint schedule 7(b). Plaintiff submits that, agricultural land bearing Sy.No.55/2 measuring 0-08 guntas and Sy.No.55/6 measuring 0.02 guntas, are ancestral properties in joint possession enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants both properties are situated Bhakthipura Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Out of income derived from the ancestral properties Khaneshumari No.742, site No.2, measuring East to West: on the northern side 16 feet, and on the southern side east to west: 20 feets and North to south: 50 feet, Total Measuring 2400 feets, together RCC building-commercial shops, situated at Attibele, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, has been purchased in the name of defendant No.1 who is Senior co-parcener of the joint family. Plot No.114, situated in converted Land bearing Sy.No.489 and Sy.No.491, measuring 1200 Sq. Plot No.114, situated in converted Land bearing Sy.No.489 and Sy.No.491, measuring 1200 Sq. feets, situated at, Kothagandapalli Village, Kothagandapalli Village Panchayath limits, Union council of Hosur, Kelamangalam sub registration District, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu, has been purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of defendant No.1-N. Chowda Reddy who is the senior co-parcener of the joint family and he is managing the joint family affairs as kartha. All the above said properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants, liable for partition and plaintiff is entitle for 1/5 th share. To incorporate as a Item No.3, 4 and 5 in the 'A' schedule in plaint schedule. 3. Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.55/6 measuring 0-02 guntas, bounded on: East by: Rajakaluve West by: Land of Venkata Reddy North by: Land of Venkata Reddy South by: Land of Venkata Reddy 4. Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.55/2 measuring 0-08 guntas, bounded on: East by: Land of Ajja Reddy West by: Land of Venkata Reddy North by: Land of Venkata Reddy South by : Government Road. 5. Site bearing No.2, Khaneshumari No.742, measuring East to West: on the northern side 16 feet, and on the southern side East to West: 20 feets and North to South: 50 feet, Totally Measuring 2400 feets, together RCC building - commercial shops, situated at Attibele, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, bounded on: East by: Site No. 743/2 West by : Attibele- Sarjapura Road, North by: Common Road, South by: Hospital Compound. To incorporate as a Item No. 3 of the 'B' schedule in plaint schedule. 3. Plot No.114 situated in converted Land bearing Sy.No.489 and Sy.No.491, measuring East to West: 40 feet, North to South: 30 feet, Total Measuring 1200 Sq. feets, situated at Kothagandapalli Village, Kothagandapalli Village Panchayath limits, Union Council of Hosur, Kelamangalam sub registration District, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu. Bounded on. East by: 30 Feet Common Road, West by: 20 Feet Common Road, North by: Plot No. 115. South by: Plot No. 113.” 4. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.XVIII by holding as under: “ORDERS ON I.A.NO.XVIII I.A.No.XVIII filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC praying to permit her to amend the plaint as sought in the application. 2. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing I.A.No.XVIII by holding as under: “ORDERS ON I.A.NO.XVIII I.A.No.XVIII filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC praying to permit her to amend the plaint as sought in the application. 2. In support of application, plaintiff sworn to an affidavit and pleaded that properties which she intending to introduce in the suit by way of amendment are also their ancestral properties. She came to know about said properties recently. Properties which she intending to introduce through amendment were purchased by the defendants from joint family income derived from joint family properties. Proposed amendment will not change the nature of suit or cause of action and amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of dispute. 3. Application is resisted by filing written objection contending that application is filed only to harass them. Plaintiff filed application at belated stage, with malafide intention. Proposed amendment is not necessary for effective adjudication of dispute 4. Heard both side and perused materials placed before the court. 5. Application filed when case posted for further cross-examination of DW-1. It is well settled law that no amendment will be allowed after commencement of trial. On the other hand, law provide description to the court to allow the amendment if it is necessary to effective adjudication of dispute. In the instant suit plaintiff pleaded that herself and defendants are joint family members and suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Relationship is not in dispute. Contention of defendant No.1 and 6 is their common ancestors bequeathed properties during his lifetime, hence, plaintiff and other defendants had no rights. Whether common ancestor bequeathed suit schedule properties during his lifetime or not?, Whether Will executed in favour of defendants is valid or not?, are to be decided after full pledged trial, it is premature stage to come to the conclusion that common ancestors disposed property through Will. As contended by the defendants no valid reasons are assigned by the plaintiff to condone the delay in filing application. Plaintiff wanted to include some properties. Suit is for partition and it is mandate on the part of plaintiff to include all properties in the suit. As contended by the defendants no valid reasons are assigned by the plaintiff to condone the delay in filing application. Plaintiff wanted to include some properties. Suit is for partition and it is mandate on the part of plaintiff to include all properties in the suit. If on the ground of delay in filing application and on the ground of negligence on the part of plaintiff application is dismissed, it will leads to multiplicity of proceedings and further delay in conclusion of dispute. On the other hand, hardship which may suffer by the defendants may be compensated by imposing compensatory costs. Amendment is necessary for full and effective adjudication of dispute, hence, following; ORDER IA.No.XVIII filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Sec.151 of CPC is allowed on cost of Rs.3,000/-. On the condition of payment of costs, plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint as sought in the application. For amendment and for amended plaint. Call on 05.01.2026.” 5. In my considered opinion, though several contentions have been urged both sides in support of their respective claims, having regard to the fact that the petitioner would be entitled to file their written statement to the amended plaint coupled with the fact that the averments made in the proposed amendment which is disputed by the petitioner herein would necessarily have to be decided only after a full fledged trial, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court permitting / allowing the amendment application, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same is said to have caused any prejudice or resulted in miscarriage of justice to the petitioner – defendant No.5 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423 , K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477 . Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. 6. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. 7. V. Jaya & others – (2022) 10 SCC 477 . Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. 6. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file additional written statement to the amended plaint. 7. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.