IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH (27TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4332 of 2011 Between: k. Chitti Babu … Petitioner And: K. Payanivel Chetty & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4332 of 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.04.2009 in IA No.641 of 2007 in OS No.951 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, wherein the said application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein under Order I Rule 10, Order 23 Rule 1-A and Order VI Rule 17 CPC to permit them to transpose as plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit and for consequential amendment of the plaint, was disposed of by partly dismissing the application insofar as the relief of transposition is concerned and partly allowed, treating the schedule properties mentioned in the written statement as suit schedule property. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property into five equal shares and for allotment of one such share. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed written statement, contesting the suit. While the matter was pending on the premise that the plaintiff has withdrawn or abandoned the claim and his counsel also reported no instructions, the defendants 1 to 4 filed IA No.641 of 2007 to be transposed as plaintiffs 2 to 5 to pursue the matter. The plaintiff resisted the said application stating that he never abandoned the suit claim. By impugned order, the learned Junior Civil Judge, held that the defendants 1 to 4 are not liable to be transposed as plaintiffs 2 to 5, as the plaintiff has not withdrawn or abandoned the suit. The said order has become final, as the same was not challenged by the defendants. However, the learned Junior Civil Judge, by impugned order permitted the written statement schedule properties to be treated as plaint schedule properties. 4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, when once the prayer for transposition of defendants 1 to 4 as plaintiffs 2 to 5 is not granted by the Court, the question of permitting the written statement schedule properties to be treated as plaint schedule property does not simply arise. According to the defendants, the plaintiff has omitted to include certain plaint schedule properties in the plaint schedule. Hence, the defendants raised a counter claim along with certain items of properties, which according to them are also joint family properties, liable for partition. 5. It is stated that the defendants have paid separate court fee on the counter claim made by them. It would therefore be just and appropriate for the trial Court to consider the properties mentioned in both the plaint schedule and also written statement schedule and record a finding as to which of those properties constitute joint family properties and liable for partition. For the said purpose, it is not required that the written statement schedule properties be treated as plaint schedule properties. The impugned order insofar as it directs the written statement schedule properties to be treated as plaint schedule properties is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 6. It is stated that earlier by order dated 11.09.2009 in CRP No.2570 of 2009 this Court directed expeditious disposal of the suit on priority basis. Having regard to the said direction given by this Court earlier and also in view of the fact that the suit is of the year 2005, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the direction as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 28.12.2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. (BO) bss