HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 6309 of 2009 and 46 of 2010 Between : Thota Sanjeeva Reddy & another. …….Petitioners And Thota Venkat Reddy & others. …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 6309 of 2009 and 46 of 2010 COMMON ORDER : These two revision petitions are filed by defendants 3 and 4 in the suit, aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.454 and 518 of 2008 in O.S.No.516 of 2004 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal. 2. So far as I.A.No.518 of 2008 is concerned, it is an application filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff, for impleadment of defendants 3 and 4, and the same is allowed. It is the case of the 1st respondent-plaintiff that during the pendency of the proceedings, he came to know that some of the plaint schedule properties stand in the name of the proposed defendants 3 and 4, and as such, the application is filed for their impleadment in the suit. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioners herein before the Court below, that as the said properties were their self-acquired properties, they should not be impleaded as defendants in the suit. 3. Whether the suit schedule properties are liable for partition or not, is a matter, which is to be gone into after trial in the suit, but at this stage, for the purpose of impleadment, the Court below has rightly considered the issue and allowed the application in I.A.No.518 of 2008. 4. So far as I.A.No.454 of 2008 is concerned, the said application is filed by plaintiff for amendment of claim, by claiming ½ share instead of 1/4th share as claimed initially, with regard to Plaint A and B schedule properties. A perusal of the order passed by the Court below shows that the Court has observed that the proposed amendment will not cause any prejudice to the case of defendants, as the trial is at the beginning stage. Therefore, in view of the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.454 of 2008, the Court below has ordered the said application. 5. In view of the reasons recorded by the Court below in the impugned orders passed in I.A.Nos.454 and 518 of 2008, I do not find any ground to interfere with such orders, in these revision petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Both the revisions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th February 2010 ajr