IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1481 of 2010 Between: M. Seshagiri Rao, S/o.M.V.Kishan Rao, Aged about 67 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Mahabubabad, Warangal District … Petitioner And M.Rukkamma, W/o.M.V.Kishan Rao, Aged 80 years, R/o.Mahahubabad, Warangal, and three others … Respondents Order: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved of the order dated 30-11-2009 passed in I.A.No.402 of 2006 in O.S.No.60 of 1997, by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad. Petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the aforesaid suit. By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner-plaintiff in I.A.No.402 of 2006 is dismissed. The suit in O.S.No.60 of 1997 is filed with the following prayer: “a) the preliminary decree passed in I.S.No.51/64 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mahabubabad, dated 08-07- 1965 be set aside and; b) the final decree if passed in O.S.No.51/64 as per orders of the court, dated 31-01- 1972 be cancelled.” The said suit is filed in the year 1997. The petitioner-plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and certain documents were also marked. At that stage, application in I.A.No.402 of 2006 was filed seeking amendment of para-12 of the plaint to the following effect: “in sub-para (a) of para-12 of the suit, after the words “preliminary decree passed” words against part of H.No.2-3-88 (old) corresponding to 2-5-110 (new) be added. Heard the learned counsel on either side. The petitioner-plaintiff claims a portion of the said property on the ground that his father has executed will deed dated 16-12-1962 and in the said will, he was also given a house portion bearing No.2-3-88 which was newly numbered as 2-5-110 and the said house was the subject-matter of O.S.No.51 of 1964. If the petitioner-plaintiff is claiming exclusive right with regard to the portion of the house, he can claim the same in a properly framed suit, but, in absence of any pleading to that effect in the plaint and relief sought in the present suit, he cannot seek any amendment of the plant at this point of time. It is to be noted that the suit was filed in the year 1997 and the matter is coming up for further evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the court below so as to interfere with the same, under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) October 1, 2010 MRR