HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5955 OF 2009 DATE:18-12-2009 BETWEEN: Boorugupalli Sri Niranjan & 2 Others. …Petitioners AND Smt. Satti Chakra Lakshmi & others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5955 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the defendants 6 to 8 is preferred assailing the orders of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 18.11.2009 whereby the application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint was allowed in I.A.No.616 of 2009 in O.S.No.784 of 2007. The suit itself was filed for partition and separation of suit schedule property by the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Pending the suit, the respondents 1 and 2-plaintiffs filed the impugned I.A. for amendment of the plaint to include ‘B’ schedule house property in the suit filed by them for partition. In the affidavit filed along with the petition, the first respondent herein stated that the respondents 6 to 8-petitioners herein are contending that there is a house property in Timmapuram Village, which is also liable for partition, and that since her parents came out of that house while she was aged about 3 years, and as her father was not in cordial terms with her, she was not aware of the said house property and therefore, to avoid legal complications, the ‘B’ schedule house property should also be included in the plaint schedule property. The defendants 6 to 8-petitioners herein opposing the I.A. filed a counter stating that the application is at a belated stage after completion of entire trial and therefore, the same is not maintainable. In a suit filed for partition and separation possession, the property which was omitted initially for want of knowledge can be included even at the stage of final decree proceedings. Further allowing the application for including the ‘B’ schedule property will not change the cause of action, and in fact, the petitioners who filed the written statement themselves stated that the house property, which is now sought to be included is also liable for partition. In that view of the matter, the discretion exercised by the lower Court allowing the amendment does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 18, 2009 Tsr.