THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3085 of 2011 Date:11th November, 2011 Between: 1.Smt.Thota Anasuya W/o.Late Thota Narasimha & Anr. ..... Petitioners AND 1. Smt.Thota Rangamma W/o.late Thota Narasimha & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3085 of 2011 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 14.02.2011 passed in I.A.No.1768 of 2010 in O.S.No.30 of 2009 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI, Rule 17 r/w.Sec.151 CPC seeking inclusion of ‘c’ schedule house in the suit schedule properties. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.30 of 2009. They are mother and daughter. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/9th share in plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ suit schedule houses. The defendants entered appearance and resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1768 of 2010 under Order VI, Rule 17 r/w.Sec.151 CPC for inclusion of ‘c’ schedule house in the suit schedule properties. The 2nd defendant filed counter resisting the application. The defendants 1, 3 to 7 filed memo adopting the counter of the 2nd defendant. The defendants took the plea that ‘c’ schedule house is the subject matter in O.S.No.1214 of 2005 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein a preliminary decree has been passed and pursuant to the preliminary decree, final decree proceedings are pending. The trial Court, having taken note of the fact of there being a preliminary decree in respect of suit schedule properties in O.S.No.1214 of 2005, proceeded to dismiss the I.A.No.1768 of 2010, by order, dated 14.02.2011. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff is not a party to the O.S.No.1214 of 2005 and therefore, the proceedings in O.S.No.1214 of 2005 do not bar the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking amendment of the suit schedule property by including the ‘c’ schedule house. 5. I have gone through the plaint in O.S.No.30 of 2009, copy of which finds place at page No.19 of the material papers. In the cause of action para. therein, it is stated as hereunder: “Cause of action arose when Thota Narasimha acquired three houses and died leaving plaintiffs and defendants as his heirs. Cause of action arose when plaintiffs and defendants filed suits against each other for perpetual injunction and declaration and possession. Cause of action arose when the plaintiffs suit for perpetual injunction was decreed and the defendants suit for declaration and possession was dismissed. Cause of action arose when the defendants filed suit OS No.1214/05 for partition against the plaintiff No.2 ignoring the plaintiff No.1 without adding two houses Ramnagar, Parsigutta at Hyderabad. Cause of action arose when the application filed by the plaintiff No.1 to add said two houses and implead the plaintiff No.1 was dismissed. Cause of action arose in the last week of November, 2008 when the plaintiffs demanded the defendants for partition of A and B schedule houses and when the defendants refused. Cause of action finally arose when plaintiffs efforts to settle subject matter amicably are failed with the intervention of elders and friends.” It is explicit from the plaint averments that the plaintiffs were aware of the passing of the preliminary decree in O.S.No.1214 of 2005 and the said preliminary decree relates to the ‘c’ schedule house. The plaintiffs herein, who are no other than the mother and daughter, are entitled together 1/9th share. When the ‘c’ schedule house is the subject matter of O.S.No.1214 of 2005, to which the 2nd petitioner/2nd plaintiff is a party, the same property cannot be the subject matter of O.S.No.30 of 2009. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the application. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11th November, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3085 of 2011 Date:11th November, 2011