IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Tuesday, the 23rd day of August, 2011 Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar C.R.P.No. 5768 of 2010 Between: Kambe Tirumalesu and others ..Petitioners and Kambe Kumari and others …Respondents The Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar C.R.P.No. 5768 of 2010 O r d e r: Order dated:08-09-2010 made in I.A.No. 335 of 2005 in O.S.No. 44 of 2003 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta is in challenge in this revision petition. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs. They filed the present suit for partition, initially against their own parents, being represented by their maternal grand-mother. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, the first defendant, who is their father demised. An application has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC to add them as Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit and also seeking amendment to add Paragraph-II (b) after the words “appropriate relief” and to add the words “that they are entitled to 2/5th share in the suit schedule property”. Their specific case is that the first defendant, their father married the third defendant about eight years back; the fourth defendant is born to them and that they being the wife and daughter of the first defendant are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. 3. Counters were filed by the respondents and the said petition was resisted. However, the lower court by the impugned order allowed the said petition holding that the petitioners are necessary parties; but, no orders were passed with regard to their request to add paragraph-II (b), after the words “appropriate relief”, as contended by them. 4. The original plaintiffs have challenged the said order in this revision petition. 5. The only contention of the petitioners herein is that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who filed the petition to come on record as Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 cannot ask the plaintiffs to amend their own plaint to the effect that the proposed defendants are entitled to 2/5th share in the plaint schedule property and to make other consequential amendments. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the lower court though allowed the petition of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to be added as parties to the suit, it consciously did not consider their request for amendment of plaint averments to the effect that they are entitled to 2/5th share in the plaint schedule property. 7. Now the only point that arises for consideration is whether the revision petition is sustainable? 8. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 requested to add paragraph – II (b) after the words “appropriate relief”, the lower court has rightly did not consider their request. The lower court by giving cogent and valid reasons allowed the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the extent of adding them as parties to the suit. Therefore the order under challenge is perfectly justified and no interference is required. It is for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, if they are so advised, to file their written statement making counter claim in accordance with Law. There are no merits in the revision petition. 9. Accordingly, subject to the observations made supra, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. August 23, 2011. *BVS