HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1333 OF 2010 Friday, the Ninth day of April, Two Thousand and Ten Between Dr. S.Rajeshwar Rao Petitioner AND A.Ramesh Kumar and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1333 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order, dated 22.02.2010 passed by the learned II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing I.A. No. 3802 of 2009 in O.S. No. 522 of 2006 filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. permitting the third defendant to incorporate paragraphs 8 to 12 in the written statement, the plaintiff filed this Revision Petition. The petitioner herein filed the above suit for declaration of title and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to remove the structures illegally built on the suit schedule property and also to permanently restrain them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof. The third defendant – first respondent herein filed the above I.A. seeking to incorporate paragraphs 8 to 12 in the written statement contending that the dismissal of OP No. 864 of 1989 by order dated 12.6.2003 filed by one Mrs. K.Satyamma, came to his knowledge when the present suit was coming up for his evidence. Since the said K.Satyamma, failed to prove her title, the proposed amendment relating to the facts of the said O.P. are just and necessary to prove his case. The case of the plaintiff - petitioner herein is that since he is not a party to OP No. 864 of 1989, for want of knowledge he denied the findings therein and contends that since the evidence in the suit has commenced, no amendment can be allowed at this belated stage. On consideration of the material available on record, the court below allowed the petition, observing that the proposed amendment cannot be said to be contrary to the earlier pleadings. Aggrieved thereby the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As observed by the court below, the contents of paragraphs 8 to 12, sought to be incorporated in the written statement, do not go contra to the pleadings earlier taken. It is also a fact that the findings recorded in OP No. 864 of 1989 relate to the suit schedule property. Therefore, the court below did not err in allowing the petition. The first respondent herein shall have an opportunity to file re-joinder. Having regard to these facts, I am of the considered view that the court below is perfectly justified in allowing the petition and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2006, I deem it appropriate to direct the court below to dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari April 09, 2010 MAS