G LORETTA Vs. GUNKULA RATHANAMMA DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 28-7-2003 in IA No. 198 of 2003 in OS No. 16 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan, Nizambad District.

(2.) The plaintiffs who are the petitioners in IA No. 198 of 2003 are the revision petitioners. The suit was filed seeking a decree for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule property. While the evidence of the plaintiffs was being recorded. IA No. 198 of 2003 under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') was filed seeking amendment of the plaint by adding a further relief of cancellation of certain registered sale deeds. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it is stated that the suit was filed for partition of the ancestral joint family properties of the late husband of the 1st plaintiff. However during the cross-examination of PW1, the defendant suggested that some of the suit properties were already alienated and in view of the said suggestion, it is necessary to amend the plaint by adding further prayer for cancellation of the said sale deeds. The said application was opposed by the second defendant by filing a counter-affidavit contending inter alia that by virtue of the proposed amendment, a new cause of action would arise for determination and therefore the same is impermissible. It is also stated that the relief sought by way of amendment is barred by limitation. The Court below after hearing both sides, by order dated 28-7-2003 dismissed IA No.198 of 2003 observing that the plaintiff having filed the suit for partition claiming a share in the suit schedule properties, failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain true facts and the proposed amendment for cancellation of sale deeds executed long back about 22 years ago cannot be permitted after commencement of the trial. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have come up with the present civil revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao and the learned Counsel for the respondents Sri P.N.A. Christian.