IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.756 OF 2010 DATED:25.06.2010 Between: K. Raji Reddy and another … Petitioners And P. Venkamma and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.756 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs. The revision is directed against the order passed by the I Additional District Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, in I.A.No.814 of 2009 in O.S. No.13 of 2009 allowing the petition without costs, as no counter is filed, and consequently permitting the amendment to the plaint schedule by including Acs.7.17 gts. in S.No.756 and Acs.17.06 gts. in S.No.749 of Rudraram Village. The factual background is that the present revision petitioners are not parties to the suit for partition and a petition for impleading them as defendants is pending before the Court in I.A. No.813 of 2009. In this petition in I.A. No.814 of 2009, the basis for seeking amendment to the plaint schedule is the alleged possession of the two items in question with the revision petitioners and the amendment was sought as a consequence to the request for impleading the proposed defendants, as seen from the affidavit in support of the petition, and not independent of the impleadment petition. Any order in I.A. No.814 of 2009 should be after and consequential to the order that may be passed in I.A. No.813 of 2009, but not independent of the same. Allowing the petition merely due to the absence of a counter even before the request for impleading the revision petitioners as defendants is decided on merits, is premature and including the properties in possession of the revision petitioners without they being parties to the suit is patently uncalled for. Therefore, the order in question has to be reversed and the matter be remitted back to the trial Court for a decision on merits along with I.A. No.813 of 2009. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I.A. No.814 of 2009 in O.S. No.13 of 2009 is remitted back to the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, for a decision on merits along with I.A. No.813 of 2009 in the same suit in accordance with law, after giving every reasonable opportunity to both parties. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. _____________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 25.06.2010 bnr