HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 5562 of 2009 Date: 23-07-2010 Between Kalavakollu Anjaneyulu and others ………… Petitioners And Kalavakollu Srinivasa Rao and others …… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 5562 of 2009 ORDER: Heard both sides and at their request, the main Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal. This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking to assail the order, dated 26- 06-2009 passed in I.A.No.362 of 2009 in O.S.No.906 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The petitioners herein filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed I.A.No.362 of 2009 in the said suit seeking amendment of the plaint by adding the properties mentioned in Exs.B-55 to B-57 as item Nos.4 to 6 to the plaint schedule on the ground that those properties were left out, which were purchased by the third plaintiff alone, and hence they need to be added as items to the plaint schedule. The lower Court, by taking into account the reasons shown in the affidavit filed in support of the Application, allowed the Application. Hence, the Revision Petition. The main objection taken by the petitioners-plaintiffs is to the very maintainability of the Application seeking amendment to the plaint at the instance of the defendants. Admittedly the defendants cannot have any locus to seek amendment of the pleadings of the other side or that of the plaintiff. Necessarily, if at all the defendants want to seek any relief, they should seek amendment of their own written statement rather than asking that of the other side i.e., plaint. In the suit for partition, even if the properties are left out, the defendants can always point out the said properties in the written statement and the same would form part of consideration at the time of main disposal of the suit, but the question of amendment of the plaint at the instance of the defendants does not arise. Therefore, the Application filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, is not maintainable and the impugned order cannot sustain and thus the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order, dated 26-06-2009 in I.A.No.362 of 2009 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.362 of 2009 before the lower Court shall stand dismissed. However, the defendants-respondents herein are at liberty to make proper amendment to their own written statement, and the same shall be considered by the lower Court in accordance with law, at the time of final disposal of the suit, after hearing both parties. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 23-07-2010 YCR