THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.2281 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 30.01.2010, passed by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.273 of 2009 in O.S.No.181 of 2002. The petitioner is defendant No.9 in O.S.No.181 of 2002 filed by the first respondent-plaintiff seeking partition of the suit schedule property. She filed her written statement. While so, she filed the present application, in I.A.No.273 of 2009, under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC with a prayer to direct the plaintiff to amend the plaint schedule so as to include house property bearing No.2-28 (old No.2- 63) admeasuring 374 sq.yards situated at Bahadurpally Village, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The first respondent- plaintiff remained e x parte. However, defendant No.5 filed counter denying the averments made in the application. The trial Court, after considering the contentions of both the parties and perusing the material on record, dismissed the said application through its order, dated 30.01.2010. Questioning the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for R2, R3, R6, R7 and R9-caveators. At the outset, it is to be noted that under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings. In the case of Dr.Dilip Kumar Renapurkar v. Vivek Pandav and others[1], wherein while dealing with similar question, it is categorically held by this Court that pleading of one party cannot be permitted to be amended by the other. The relevant para reads as under: “8. As pointed out earlier, there may be circumstances, though rare, for transposing the defendants as plaintiffs. However, instances of the pleadings of one party being permitted to be amended by another party, are totally unknown to law. Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. accords permission for a party, to seek amendment of “his own pleading”. Simply because an existing defendant has been transposed as a plaintiff, the plaint does not become the pleading of a defendant, who has since been transposed as a plaintiff. A similar question arose for consideration, before this Court, in Patchipulusu Mahalakshmi v. Nagolu Ramanamma[2]. After discussing the relevant provisions, it was held that the pleading of one party, cannot be permitted to be amended by the other.” In view of the above settled proposition of law, the present application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.9 to amend the plaint is not maintainable. The trial Court while relying the judgments of this Court (supra) has rightly dismissed the application. At the hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent-plaintiff has no objection for amendment of the plaint. If that be so, it is the plaintiff who has to file the application seeking amendment of the plaint, but not the petitioner, who is defendant No.9 in the suit. In the circumstances, this Court discerns no infirmity whatsoever warranting interference with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:21.06.2010 VGB [1] 2005 (5) ALT 581 [2] 2004 (4) ALT 64