THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2515 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.50 of 2007 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki against the respondents, her mother and sister respectively, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, comprising of 5 items. A written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. Respondent No.2 filed I.A.No.48 of 2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to include an item of property in the suit schedule. According to respondent No.2, the said property was acquired by their father and after his death, it has devolved in equal shares upon her and the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the application on several grounds. It was pleaded that a defendant in a suit does not have any right to seek amendment of a plaint or any part thereof, including the schedule. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 20.06.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. A suit for partition is pending between the petitioner and the respondents. The relationship of the parties has already been indicated. While the petitioner pleaded that five items mentioned in the suit schedule are liable to be partitioned, respondent No.2 is of the view that one more item is liable to be partitioned and she filed an application to get that included in the plaint schedule. On the face of it, the procedure adopted by respondent No.2 was incorrect. In case she wanted that another item of property over and above those included in the suit schedule, is liable to be partitioned, she could have taken necessary plea in the written statement and insisted that an issue be framed in relation thereto. In certain cases, the items are added or deleted even at the stage of final decree proceedings. This Court is of the view that instead of setting aside the order in its entirety and directing respondent No.2 to file a separate application, I.A.No.48 of 2009 can be treated as the one seeking amendment to the written statement. Hence, the civil revision petition is disposed of directing that I.A.No.48 of 2009 shall be treated as the one, filed for amendment of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents and that the trial Court shall frame an issue as to whether the item sought to be included, is liable to be partitioned. The order under revision shall stand modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:05.09.2011 kdl