IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1115 OF 2008 Between: Teli Earu Bai and four others …Petitioners A n d Teli Rajeshwar and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1115 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 25-07-2007 in O.S.No.25 of 2004, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, wherein the learned Senior Civil Judge, on the preliminary question of jurisdiction, held that the Court has no jurisdiction insofar as the property situate in Bablanpur is concerned. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The petitioners herein filed the suit against the respondents for partition of the plaint schedule properties and separate possession of their share and also for mesne profits. The defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled. During the course of trail, the plaintiff’s side evidence was completed and D.W.1 filed chief affidavit. Subsequently, I.A.No.11 of 2007 was filed for framing of additional issues and the following additional issue was framed: “Whether the civil Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit schedule properties situated in agency tracks? Then the trial Court heard both sides on the said additional issue and passed the impugned order holding that the Court has got jurisdiction in respect of the property situate in the villages of Bazarhatnur and Bandarav, but not having jurisdiction in respect of the property situate in Bablanpur which is included in the list of scheduled villages under the Agency Rules. It is to be noted that the suit is one for partition in respect of the plaint schedule properties situate in different villages. The cause of action for filing the suit in respect of the plaint schedule properties is one and the same. It is well settled that in a partition suit, all the properties, which are liable for partition, according to the plaintiff, have to be included. The plaintiff cannot file separate suits for partition in respect of different items of property. The exclusion of the items situate in Bablanpur from the plaint schedule, by the impugned order, is unwarranted, simply because Bablanpur village happens to be notified in the list of scheduled villages. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the name of the village is not Bablanpur as mistakenly mentioned in the plaint schedule but is Balanpur which is also called Balhanpur which a notified village and evidence was also adduced to that effect through Tahsildar, Bazarhatnur. 5. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order, holding that the Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the property situate in Balanpur village, is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter in respect of all the items of the plaint schedule. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th April, 2011 Lrkm.