THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.300 of 2008 Dated: 15.10.2009 Between: D.Narayana Reddy. .. Petitioner. And Smt. D.Satyamma (died) and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 06.08.2007, in I.A.No.159 of 2006 in O.S.No.73 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.73 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District. He filed the suit for partition. While the suit is pending, he filed the present Interlocutory Application being I.A.No.159 of 2006 in the said suit, to amend the pleadings. Respondent No.2 filed a detailed counter affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner in the said Interlocutory Application. The learned trial Judge, after considering the matter in detail, dismissed the said application by order dated 06.08.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. As can be seen from the impugned order, the petitioner earlier filed application in I.A.No.2630 of 2004 seeking permission for amendment of plaint to include certain properties. The said I.A. was dismissed for default. To set aside the said default order, the petitioner filed application in I.A. No. 283 of 2005, and the said application was also dismissed. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 3494 of 2006, and this Court by order dated 01.07.2006, dismissed the C.R.P. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application. As the relief claimed in the present application was already claimed by the petitioner in I.A. No. 2630 of 2004, which was dismissed for default, and the C.R.P. filed thereagainst was also dismissed, the Court below dismissed the present application. Since the relief claimed in the present application was already dismissed for default, which stood confirmed in C.R.P., and the said order having attained finality, I am of the considered opinion that the said order operates as res judicata, prohibiting the petitioner from maintaining the present application. Hence, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision, passed by the Court below refusing to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint in the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 15.10.2009 v v