HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3519 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 30.06.2011 in I.A.No.1112 of 2010 in A.S.No.26 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order I Rule 10 (2) and (4) r/w Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C was dismissed. Heard both sides. Perused the record. The petitioner along with 8th respondent filed a suit-O.S.No.70 of 2001 before the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, for partition of the plaint schedule house into six equal shares and for allotment of 1/6th share each. After contest, the suit was decreed in part on 24.10.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein-second plaintiff in the said suit filed A.S.No.26 of 2009, whereas the other defendants in the suit are said to have filed separate appeal-A.S.No.1 of 2008. It is stated that both appeals are pending. While so, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.1112 of 2010 seeking the relief of transposition of 1st plaintiff-8th respondent herein as defendant No.8 to the original plaint in O.S.No.70 of 2001 and also for making certain amendments to the plaint including the amendment pertaining to grant of additional reliefs of declaration that the gift settlement deeds dated 29.01.2008, 30.01.2008 and 30.01.2008 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd and 3rd defendants and 1st plaintiff (proposed 8th defendant) are sham, nominal, void and not binding on the petitioner. According to the petitioner, originally 1st plaintiff was sailing with him and both of them together filed the suit for partition and subsequent to the grant of preliminary decree and during the pendency of the appeal, 1st plaintiff joined hands with his father and 2nd and 3rd defendants and they obtained certain documents by way of gift settlement deeds from their father – 1st defendant by fraudulent means and the said documents, which are brought into existence during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court are not binding on the petitioner herein. He, therefore, seeks transposition of 1st plaintiff as 8th defendant, in view of the conflict of interest between himself and 1st plaintiff, which has arisen on account of execution of the gift settlement deeds. As the suit is one for partition and as the petitioner – 2nd plaintiff has shown that conflict of interest between himself and 1st plaintiff ensued on account of execution of the registered documents by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd and 3rd defendants and 1st plaintiff, it is considered that 1st plaintiff can be transposed as 8th defendant. It is stated that 1st plaintiff filed the appeal along with the petitioner herein, and the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.721 of 2008 for transposition of 1st plaintiff as respondent No.5 and 1st plaintiff has already been transposed as respondent No.5 in the appeal. Inasmuch as 1st plaintiff i.e., 8th respondent herein is concerned, he has already been transposed as one of the respondents in A.S.No.26 of 2009, and therefore, there cannot be any objection for his transposition as 8th defendant in the suit. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C does not come in the way of granting the relief of transposition on account of the subsequent events that have taken place during the pendency of the proceedings. Inasmuch as the relief pertaining to the proposed amendment of the plaint is concerned, it is seen that though in the petition they are stated to be consequential amendments, the proposed amendments, particularly, the amendment pertaining to the prayer in the plaint discloses that the petitioner herein is seeking the relief of declaration that three gift deeds one dated 29.01.2008 and two others dated 30.01.2008 are sham, nominal, bogus, fraudulent, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The said relief cannot be considered to be consequential relief consequent upon the transposition of the first plaintiff as 8th defendant. The said relief is the main and substantial relief being prayed for in the suit in addition to the relief of partition already prayed for. The proposed amendment do not also disclose as to how the said relief is to be valued and how much of Court fee is payable thereon. Inasmuch as the proposed amendments are not consequential to the relief of transposition of 1st plaintiff as 8th defendant and the relief of transposition being distinct and separate from the relief of amendment of the plaint, it is held that the present single application filed for two distinct and separate reliefs is not maintainable. Insofar as the relief of proposed amendment of the plaint is concerned, as the relief of transposition of the first plaintiff as 8th defendant is granted, only such of those amendments, which are consequential to such transposition are permitted to be made, but not the proposed amendment contained in para 8 of the petition. It is open to the petitioner to file separate application for amendment regarding the said prayer pertaining to the declaration as stated in para 8 of the petition, if he is so advised and on such application being filed, the learned District Judge shall dispose of the same on its own merits, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. In the circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the application is modified to the extent of granting the relief of transposition of 1st plaintiff as 8th defendant and the consequential amendments in the plaint pertaining to such transposition, but not regarding the proposed amendment of the prayer in the plaint seeking the relief of declaration. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 26.12.2011 va