IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH (11TH) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.409 of 2010 & CRP No.413 of 2010 CRP No.409 of 2010: Between: Smt. Sulochana & 3 others … Petitioners And: Smt. Anitadevi & 6 others … Respondents CRP No.413 of 2010: Between: Smt. Sulochana & 3 others … Petitioners And: Smt. Anitadevi & 6 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.409 of 2010 & CRP No.413 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: CRP No.409 of 2010 and CRP No.413 of 2010 are directed against the common order dated 29.09.2009 in IA No.2944 of 2007 (filed under order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint) and IA No.2945 of 2007 (filed under Order I Rule 10(1) and (2) CPC for adding the respondents 8 to 19 as defendants 8 to 19), respectively, in OS No.21 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioners herein, were dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed suit for partition. As per the averments in the plaint, the 3rd defendant was alive by the date of filing of the suit. When summons were issued to 3rd defendant, they were returned with endorsement that 3rd defendant is no more. When an opportunity was given to the plaintiffs to take steps to bring the Legal heirs of the deceased 3rd defendant on record, the plaintiffs did not take any steps and on the other hand, they filed a memo not pressing the suit against the 3rd defendant, as he was no more. However, the suit was dismissed as against 3rd defendant. When the matter came up for trial, the plaintiffs filed present application i.e., IA No.2945 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of respondents 8 to 19 as defendants 8 to 19, who are stated to be the legal heirs of the deceased 3rd defendant. The respondents opposed the same on the ground that the claim against 3rd defendant was already dismissed as not pressed. 4. It is to be seen that the 3rd defendant was also one of the members of the joint family. No steps were taken by the plaintiffs to bring the legal heirs of 3rd defendant on record. The petitioners seek to implead his legal heirs as defendants 8 to 19 under Order I Rule 10 CPC. It cannot for a moment be disputed, that in a suit for partition, all the members of the joint family or legal heirs of any deceased member would be proper and necessary parties to the suit. Thus the proposed defendants 8 to 19 are proper and necessary parties to the suit, which is filed for partition. On the other hand, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to adjudicate the dispute in a comprehensive manner, the presence of all the parties concerned before the Court is necessary. Under those circumstances, it is considered that the proposed defendants 8 to 19 be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased 3rd defendant under Order I Rule 10 CPC being proper and necessary parties to the suit. The impugned order dismissing the IA No.2945 of 2007, is therefore unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. 5. Coming to the other application i.e., IA No.2944 of 2007, the plaintiffs seek amendment of the plaint by introducing several pleas and seeking various reliefs not mentioned in the original plaint. As rightly pointed by the trial Court, by way of proposed amendment, the plaintiffs are trying to introduce new set of facts, contrary to the facts pleaded in the original plaint, based on the new cause of action, which would cause prejudice to the defendants. The proposed amendments, which are inconsistent with the earlier pleadings and bring a new case based on new cause of action, is therefore not permissible. The trial Court has therefore, rightly dismissed the petition i.e., IA No.2944 of 2007, filed for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which was filed at the stage of trial, and the said impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. In the result, CRP No.409 of 2010 is dismissed and CRP No.413 of 2010 is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 11.02.2011 bss