IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 8 8 9 of 2009 Between : Patchala Venkatramaiah & Ors. … Revision Petitioners- Plaintiffs V/s. Patchala Venkayamma & Ors. … Respondents- Defendants Counsel for the Revision Petitioners: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Respondents : Sri N.Venkateswarlu for R3 & R4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 8 8 9 OF 2009 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 08-12-2009 passed in IA.No.1105 of 2005 in OS.No. 273 of 2004 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur district, dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order-VI, Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the plaint by impleading the proposed pleadings as Para No.3 (a) and delete the relief (a) in the existing plaint and substitute proposed relief and also amend Paras 4 and 5 of the plaint, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 2. Heard both sides. At the request of both sides, the main Revision is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioners filed OS.No. 273 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet against respondents 1 and 2 seeking to declare the will dated 29-5-2003 executed by the husband of the first respondent in respect of the suit schedule property as genuine, valid and binding on the defendants. The suit schedule properties i.e., Ac:1-00 Ac:3-17 cents of agricultural land (A-schedule), House and Ac:0-58 cents of agricultural land (B- schedule). The said suit was filed on 14-6-2004. After filing the suit, the first respondent herein executed a sale deed on 15-9-2004 in favour of respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the same schedule property. The respondents 3 and 4 basing on the said sale deed dated 15-9-2004 filed a suit in OS.No. 262 of 2005 before the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli against the petitioners seeking permanent injunction. The said suit was transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet to be tried along with OS.No. 273 of 2004 filed by the petitioners and the same was re- numbered as OS.No.361 of 2005. While things stood thus, at this stage, the petitioners filed IA.No. 11-5 of 2005 in OS.No. 273 of 2004 under Order-VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint enabling them to declare the subsequent sale deed dated 15-9-2004 as sham, nominal, inoperative and not binding on them. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge dismissed IA.No. 1105 of 2005 by an order dated 08-12-2008 refusing to amend the plaint in OS.No. 273 of 2004. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel, it is quite natural to raise such objections as per subsequent sales, though the sales are under Transfer of Property Act. However, in order to obtain proper executable decree against the persons concerned in respect of the subject matter, even the subsequent transfer is completed and added as parties. Coming to the valuation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay the court fee on proper valuation immediately after the amendment is allowed. Accepting the said undertaking, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the application , in IA.No.1105 of 2005 in OS.No. 273 of 2004 filed by the Revision Petitioners on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur district, is allowed subject to the payment of court fee and proper valuation. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 27-04-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 8 8 9 OF 2009 CIRCULATION ENTRY No. 192 Date: 27-04-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43