THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4440 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.545 of 2009 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The respondent, who is their brother, filed the said suit for partition of items I to III of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties and plaint ‘B’ schedule properties viz., gold, silver and cash. The evidence of P.W.1 – there is no dispute – is completed. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.562 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). They sought amendment of the plaint schedule by adding the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in Survey No.204, which according to the petitioner is allegedly the property of the joint family. The application was opposed and the Court below dismissed the application by impugned order dated 06.09.2011. The counsel for the petitioners would submit that if the land in Survey No.204 is not included in the suit schedule, the suit itself would not be maintainable as there cannot be a suit for partition. He secondly would urge that merely because the petitioners did not cross examine the plaintiff on this aspect, their remedy under Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot be denied. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the present CRP was filed on 12.10.2011; a day thereafter, the petitioners filed another interlocutory application being I.A.No.734 of 2011 for similar relief and that the said application was also dismissed on 15.11.2011. Further, he would contend that when the petitioners did not raise such plea in the written statement or did not even cross examine the plaintiff on the question of inclusion or non-inclusion of land in Survey No.204, they cannot seek amendment in the present suit. A Photostat copy of the affidavit and application in I.A.No.734 of 2011 is placed before this Court. Though the said application was filed under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the plaintiff to include the land in the suit schedule, in fact, the relief is the same, this only would show that the petitioners are resorting to abuse of the process of the Court. Be that as it is, as pointed out by the counsel for the respondent, the petitioners herein did not raise such a plea during the trial when plaintiff produced the evidence. This is not seriously disputed or denied by other side. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 in Survey No.204 was already partitioned among the three brothers and they also obtained pattadar passbooks. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order nor there is any grave error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14th December 2011 RRB