THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. No. 5907 of 2010 Dated. 11–02-2011 Between: Parameswara Veerraju Reddy …Petitioner Vs. Grandhi Sriramulu and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 5907 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 23-09-2010 of the learned II-Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, rejecting I.A.No. 673 of 2010 in O.S.No. 478 of 2005. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant therein. On behalf of the defendants, it was contended that the plaintiff had no title to the plaint schedule property. The written statement to that effect was filed two years prior to I.A.No. 673 of 2010. The evidence of both parties is already recorded and the suit was coming up for trial and at the stage of arguments, I.A.No. 673 of 2010 under Order VIII Rule 8 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed to receive the additional written statement claiming that the revision petitioner came to know that in the Government revenue records, the plaint schedule property, which is part of survey No. 76/1 of Dowleswaram, is recorded as property belonging to Sri Laxmi Janardhana Swamy Devasthanam, Dowleswaram. The above application was rejected by the Court below stating that the application is filed at a belated stage and that since the defendants had already denied the title of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title, the burden is initially on the plaintiff to prove his title and the defendants could well have marshalled evidence in support of their claim that the plaintiff does not have title to the property even without specific plea that the property not belongs to the plaintiff, but to Sri Laxmi Janardhana Swamy Devasthanam, Dowledswaram. This Court discerns no error either in the application of law or exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. There are no merits. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 11-02-2011 Pvks/*