THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.581 OF 2008 & 583 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.581 of 2008, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 30.01.2008, in I.A.No.2725 of 2007 in O.S.No.485 of 1994, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, whereunder and whereby, the petition, under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.11 and 12 to amend the plaint, was allowed. 2. C.R.P.No.583 of 2008, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 30.01.2008, in I.A.No.81 of 2008 in O.S.No.485 of 1994, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, whereunder and whereby, the petition, under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, to carry out consequential amendments in pursuance of the amendment sought for in I.A.No.2725 of 2007, was allowed. 3. The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No.485 of 1994 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties, but not included all the joint family properties for partition. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/defendant Nos.11 and 12 were not impleaded as defendants when the suit is filed. They got impleaded themselves in the said suit and thereafter, filed counter claim, but it was returned on the ground that it exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.P.No.923 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, to transfer the said suit, but it was dismissed with the observation that respondent Nos.1 and 2 could file a separate suit and seek transfer thereafter. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement in the said suit and thereafter, filed O.S.No.912 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition and separate possession in respect of the properties mentioned in the counter claim. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.485 of 1994 in respect of some items of the joint family properties only. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the present petition to amend the plaint, so as to include all the joint family properties in O.S.No.485 of 1994 for the purpose of effecting partition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. does not permit a party to amend the pleadings of other party; that therefore, the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the present petition and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/defendant Nos.11 and 12 contended that when the issue involved in both the suits is one and the same, if the suits are to be tried by two different Courts, there may be possibility of conflict of decisions; and hence, he prays to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 24 C.P.C. suo moto in view of the fact that the parties are same in both the suits and the suits are ripe for disposal. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.15 and 16/defendant Nos.15 and 16 contended that the issue to be decided in both the suits is one and the same and hence, he prays that both the suits can be tried by the same Court. 7. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. permits a party to amend his pleadings, but not the pleadings of other party. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. reads thus: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” A plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that a defendant cannot be permitted to amend the plaint. By virtue of the amendment now sought, the properties to be added are to be included in the schedule. There cannot be any dispute that schedule also form part of plaint. Therefore, in view of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., such an amendment is not permissible. So, the amendment petition allowed as per the impugned order in C.R.P.No.581 of 2008 is set aside. 8. The contention of respondent No.10 is that some of the joint family properties have not been included in O.S.No.485 of 1994, whereas in O.S.No.912 of 2006 all the joint family properties have been included. Therefore, if both the suits are tried by two different Courts, there may be possibility of conflict of decisions. In order to avoid conflict of decisions, both the suits can be tried by the same Court. Hence, exercising the powers under Section 24 C.P.C., O.S.No.912 of 2006 pending on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, to be tried simultaneously with O.S.No.485 of 1994. 9. In view of the fact that one of the suits is an oldest one, certain directions can be given to the concerned Judge to dispose of both the suits as expeditiously as possible. The learned counsel for the parties stated that on a date which may be fixed by the trial Court after transfer of O.S.No.912 of 2006, the parties shall co-operate with the concerned Judge for trial and disposal of both the suits simultaneously. So, both the parties shall co-operate with the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, for disposal of the suits and shall produce all the witnesses, and the learned Judge is directed to dispose of both the suits simultaneously in accordance with law, after letting in evidence simultaneously or one after another, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of records in O.S.No.912 of 2006 from the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy and the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, is directed to transmit the records in O.S.No.912 of 2006 forthwith. 10. In view of the fact that the impugned order in C.R.P.No.581 of 2008 is set aside, the impugned order in C.R.P.No.583 of 2008 is also liable to be set aside and is accordingly, set aside. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 23, 2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/O.MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.581 OF 2008 & 583 OF 2008 C.R.P.No.581 of 2008: Between: K. Sudarshan Reddy .....PETITIONER AND Smt. K. Anjamma @ Anjali Devi and others ....RESPONDENTS C.R.P.No.583 of 2008: Between: K. Sudarshan Reddy .....PETITIONER AND Smt. K. Anjamma @ Anjali Devi and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.581 OF 2008 & 583 OF 2008 November 23, 2010