IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21TH) DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4358 of 2010 Between: K.N. Ravinder …Petitioner And: K.N. Raja Kumar … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4358 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.02.2010 in IA No.3989 of 2010 in OS No.175 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-defendant under Order XI Rule 14 CPC, to include the house bearing D.No.8- 12, Timberbridge Court, Westmont, Illinois, USA, as one of the items of the joint family properties in the B schedule along with other property mentioned therein i.e., house bearing D.No.10-2- 204, West Marrepally, Secunderabad, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed a suit for partition of the plaint schedule property i.e., House bearing D.No.10-2-204 situated at West Marredpally, which according to him is a joint family property. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. He filed IA No.3989 of 2008 seeking to include the property situated in USA in the plaint schedule on the ground that the said item is also joint family property and liable for partition. By seeking the said relief, the petitioner is requesting the Court to exercise jurisdiction over the property, which is situated out side jurisdiction of the Court and in fact, out side the limits of the country, as admittedly, the said item of the property sought to be included is situated in USA. 4. The Explanation to Section 16 CPC states that ‘property’ means property situate in India. In the circumstances, as the property sought to be included in the plaint schedule, is admittedly situate out side the border of India, the trial Court has rightly rejected the request. The impugned order dismissing the application filed under Section 151 CPC does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.07.2011 bss