THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3330 of 2005 DATED:02.09.2009 Between: Chakiri Yanadhi .. Petitioner/Applicant/Decree holder And Chakiri Venkata Swamy (died) And others .. Respondents/Judgment debtors THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3330 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.2 of 1997 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Ongole for the recovery of partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. A preliminary decree was passed on 19.03.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.277 of 2004 under Sections 151 to 153 of Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to include an item of immovable property, namely, Ac.1.56 cents in Survey No.137-2 in the suit schedule. He pleaded that the said item was not included on account of his not being aware of the same. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit opposing the I.A. They pleaded that the item that is proposed to be included was transferred under Ex.B4 sale deed and the same cannot be included. Through its order, dated 28.01.2005, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Basically, an application under Sections 151 to 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be filed only when the decree drawn by the Court is not in accordance with the judgment. It is not the case of the petitioner that item of property mentioned above was included in the judgment or plaint, but not reflected in the preliminary decree. In fact, the petitioner wanted independent adjudication vis-à-vis the item that was sought to be included. Addition of fresh items of property or exclusion of the existing ones can certainly be undertaken in a suit for partition till a final decree is passed. This exercise, however is not automatic. Much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If there is no dispute among the parties that an item of property was not included, there should not be any difficulty for the Court to include it. Where, however, serious disputes exist, independent adjudication becomes necessary. Therefore, the very application filed by the petitioner was untenable. At any rate, once it has emerged that the item of the property was already transferred under Ex.B4, it cannot be included, unless Ex.B4 was set aside. Viewed from any angle, order under revision does not warrant interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 2nd September 2009 KH/GHN