THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.4750 OF 2008 DATE: 22-2-2010 Between: 1. Agguna Ammudamma and 6 others .. Petitioners and 1. Balla Lakshmi and 4 others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.4750 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta in I.A.No.152 of 2008 in O.S.No.35 of 1999 dated 27.8.2008. I.A.No.152 of 2008 is an application filed under Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to file subsequent pleadings by way of an additional written statement. It is the case of the petitioners herein, who filed the said application, that Items 12 and 13 were not joint family properties; Item 14 was in an extent of Ac.0-05 cents and not Ac.0-25 cents as shown in the plaint schedule; the plaintiffs had not included the land of an extent of Ac.0-59 cents located in Sy.No.159/11 and Ac.1.31 cents located in Sy.No.205/19, and the suit was bad for partial partition. The petitioners case, in short, is that these properties are that of her father and not joint family properties; by inadvertence their mother could not take the plea and because of mistake and old age the written statement was drafted. After perusing the affidavit and counter affidavit filed on behalf of both the parties the Court below held that the petitioners being the legal representatives of defendant no.2 could not take a defence contrary to the defence taken by the original deceased defendant. Relying on the judgment of this Court in E.Narasimha Reddy v. Sree Rama WareHouse[1] the Court below held that, in as much as the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.2 could not take defence contrary to the defence taken by the defendant No.2, they were not entitled to file an additional written statement containing pleas other than those originally pleaded in the written statement filed by defendant No.2. In addition, the court below noted that the suit was of the year 1999; nine years had elapsed and it was an identified suit; the suit was at the fag end of trial i.e., it was coming for further evidence of defendants; and, in such circumstances, there were no bonafides to allow the petition at that stage. The Court below observed that the main suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule properties; the party who filed the suit had to prove that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties; there were no other properties to the joint family other than the suit schedule property; there was no previous partition of the joint family properties; he/she was a member of joint family; it is only then that the relief for partition could be granted; and even if the said pleadings were not brought on record, by way of an additional written statement, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. The petition was, accordingly, dismissed. Sri A.Ravi Shankar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would reiterate the very same submissions made before the Court below in these revision proceedings. It is evident, from the order under challenge in this revision proceedings, that the court below had relied on the judgment of this Court in E.Narasimha Reddy1 to the effect that the legal representative of the deceased defendant could not take a defence contrary to the defence taken by the deceased in his written statement. The order of the court below neither suffers from any patent illegality nor does it cause manifest injustice to the petitioners herein. I see no reason, therefore, to exercise discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain the revision against the order in I.A.No.152 of 2008 in O.S.No.35 of 1999 dated 27.8.2008. The C.R.P. fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________ 22-2-2010 asp [1] 2008(3) ALT 30