THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2336 of 2011 (Dated : 30-08-2011) Between: Pandra Satish and others …Petitioners A n d Pandra Ramesh and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2336 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 25-3-2011 passed in I.A.No.658 of 2011 in O.S.No.50 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice. 2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.50 of 2011. They filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the suit property. The defendants entered appearance and resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. The petitioners-plaintiffs examined three witnesses on their behalf as PWs 1 to 3. During the cross-examination of the witnesses, a suggestion was made to them by the defendants that they have two sisters, namely, Pothuraju Prema W/o Bhaskar and Bathala Manjula W/o Sivadeva Prakash and they are also necessary parties. After closer of evidence on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs, an application being filed I.A.No.658 of 2011 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice has been moved by them (petitioners) seeking the following relief:- “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint and order for consequential amendment as detailed hereunder and pass necessary orders in the interests of justice”. 3. The proposed amendment sought for reads as hereunder:- “ The plaintiff submits that Pandra Narasimhulu have two daughters namely Pothuraju Prema and Bathala Manjula. After from the sons defendants 1 and 2 namely Pandra Ramesh and Pandra Rajesh. The plaintiff further submits that Pandra Chinnaiah has got a daughter by name Elisetty Sarojanamma @ Kavamma apart from Pandra Rama Krishnaiah, Pandra Subbarayudu and Pandra Narasimhulu. 3B. The plaintiff further submits that in view of recent amendment of the Hindu Succession Act the daughters are coparceners entitled to share in the property. So, Elisetty Sarjonamma @ Kavamma being the daughter of Pandra Chinnaiah entitled to one share in the plaint schedule property. The entire plaint schedule property has got to be divided into four equal shares allotting Pandra Rama Krishnaiah heirs plaintiffs 1 to 9 one share. Pandra Subbarayudu who was 10th plaintiff died his heirs plaintiffs 11 and 12 entitled to one share and Pandra Narasimhulu the father of defendants 1 and 2 along with Pothuraju Prema and Bathala Manjula entitled to one such share. “ 4. The respondents-defendants filed counter resisting the application. 5. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 25-3- 2011. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “ As seen from the record the suit O.S.No.50/01 is coming for evidence of defendants. The plaintiff evidence is closed. Even as per the plaintiff, the defendants has not taken plea in the written statement that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. So when there is no pleading, any amount of suggestions which are given to the witnesses are not relevant for the purpose of the suit. In a suit for partition all the parties and legal representatives are entitled for their claim if they are entitled as per law…..” Hence, this revision by the petitioners-plaintiffs. 6. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 01-07- 2011. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance through a counsel. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Elisetty Sarojamma @ Kavamma, Potharajau Prema W/o Bhaskar and Bathala Majula W/o Sivadeva Prakash are also entitled to a share in the suit schedule property and therefore, they are necessary parties and thereby, amendment of plaint is necessitated. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 supported the order impugned in the revision. 10. Indisputably, the petitioners-plaintiffs have not filed any petition seeking impleadment of Elisetty Sarojamma @ Kavamma, Potharajau Prema W/o Bhaskar and Bathala Majula W/o Sivadeva Prakash as on this day. Without there impleadment, seeking amendment that they too are entitled to a share in the properties is premature. 11. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to make an application seeking impleadment of Elisetty Sarojamma @ Kavamma, Potharajau Prema, W/o Bhaskar and Bathala Majula W/o Sivadeva Prakash as parties to the suit and thereafter, seek amendment of the plaint, if so advised. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.30-08-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2336 of 2011 (Dated : 30-08-2011)