THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5629 of 2009 Date:08.12.2009 Between: Varagamreddi Chinna Rami Reddy and others. ..Petitioners and Varagamreddi santhamma and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5629 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.4 of 2008 (before it came to be numbered as such, it was O.S.No.33 of 2002) in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, for the reliefs of partition and separate possession in respect of A & B schedule properties, and declaration of title and injunction in respect of C schedule property against the respondents/defendants. The trial of the suit commenced. The respondents, however, did not file written statement for quite some time. It was only in 2009 that they filed written statement. Since there was enormous delay in filing it, they filed I.A.No.665 of 2009 under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 151 C.P.C. They stated that necessary instructions were given to their counsel to file written statement in the initial stages of the suit and when they noticed that the written statement was not filed, immediate steps have been taken to file it. The said application was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that there is enormous and unexplained delay in filing the written statement. Through its order dated 13.10.2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Sri D. Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the respondents have virtually lost their right to deliver defence and the trial Court ought not to have permitted them to file written statement after seven years of filing the suit, particularly when the C.P.C. was amended stipulating the time for filing the written statement. The proceedings in a suit would be complete only when the contesting defendants file written statement, which in turn would pave the way for the Court to frame issues and commence the trial. To avoid unwarranted delay in filing the written statements, Parliament amended the relevant provisions and made the Rule in this regard stringent. Viewed in isolation, the request of the respondents to permit them to file written statement at that length of time certainly would deserve rejection. The trial Court took some important aspects into account. In a suit for partition, it would be difficult to draw lines among various adversaries. For all practical purposes, the distinction between the plaintiff and the defendant disappears in suit of that nature and the exercise to be undertaken by the Court would be to ascertain as to whether any items of property are available for partition to determine the shares of the respective parties. The record discloses that though the respondents have filed written statement. Amendment prayed for by them was permitted as recently as on 17.08.2009. Virtually, new or different picture comes into existence. Though there was indifference or enormous delay on the part of the respondents to file written statement, at least the permission accorded by the trial Court enabling some, to amend their written statement would create basis for them to deliver their defence. The trial is yet to conclude. Witnesses have to be cross-examined. The trial Court has taken a practical view of the matter and the petitioners cannot be said to have suffered any detriment. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the Will upon which the respondents have placed reliance in their written statement shall be subject to proof and it shall be open to the petitioners assail the same on factual and legal grounds that are available to them. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 08th December, 2009 GHN