THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISON PETITION No : 3975 of 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the plaintiff calling in question the correctness of the orders passed on 30.06.2010 in I.A.No.434 of 2009 in O.S.No.175 of 2006 instituted by him on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Siddipet. I.A.No.434 of 2009 has been taken out by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 7 C.P.C. seeking permission to amend item No.4 of the plaint- A schedule by inserting the names of “Vudem Narayana Reddy and Laxmi” in place of Shivar of Srigiripally Village, on the eastern side of Sy.No.163. The suit O.S.No.175 of 2006 has been filed seeking partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in plaint Schedule A, B and C lands. Plaint-A schedule comprised of four items. Item 4 is described as land of an extent of Ac.3-00 situated in Sy.No.163. Originally, it’s eastern boundary has been described as village shivar whereas through I.A.No.434 of 2006 this description of eastern boundary is sought to be altered by getting the village shivar deleted and adding the names of Vudem Narayana Reddy and Laxmi instead. This was opposed by the respondents/defendants on the plea that the petitioner/plaintiff is trying to introduce the lands situated in a different survey number by merely seeking to alter the eastern boundary of item 4 of plaint-A schedule, which is impermissible. According to the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, land falling in a different survey number becomes a different property and therefore, the plaint should not be permitted to be amended in the manner in which it is now sought. Heard Sri Pratap Reddy for the respondents. In a suit for partition onus lies on the plaintiff to establish that each item of the schedule appended to the plaint is liable to suffer partition at the hands of the plaintiff. Therefore, if there is any dispute with regard to the identity of the property in question, the same can be made a specific issue for determination. Only on the ground that a boundary is not liable to be altered without anything more being done by the plaintiff, may not be a tenable reason for rejecting the amendment sought for. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. I.A.No.434 of 2009 in O.S.No.175 of 2006 shall stand allowed. However, it is made abundantly clear that it is for the plaintiff/petitioner to establish that the land of Ac.3-00 which is sought to be partitioned with the amended boundaries, falls in Sy.No.163 of the Village concerned and that it is liable for partition by adducing appropriate evidence in that regard. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 20th January 2011 bud