THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4574 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.65 of 2000 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. They relied upon a Will, dated 01.10.2009, said to have been executed by the father of the first petitioner, by name Venkata Subba Rao. The contesting respondents, on the other hand, relied upon a Will, dated 06.10.1990, said to have been executed by the same person. The suit has undergone several stages. The petitioners filed I.A.No.708 of 2006 with a prayer to implead respondents 9 to 15, being two daughters and the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent, as parties to the suit. It was alleged that in the event of the Will propounded by them not being accepted, a preliminary decree for partition deserves to be passed and in the light of the recent amendment caused to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughters of the original owner are also entitled for a share in the partition. The application was opposed by the second respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., though its order, dated 17.01.2007. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent. It is, no doubt, true that the proceedings before the trial Court were initiated way back in the year 1990 and they could not be disposed of for one reason or the other. The I.A. came to be filed nearly 16 years after the institution of the suit. The fact, however, remains that the necessity to file the I.A. arose on account of the recent amendment caused to the Hindu Succession Act, through Act 39 of 2005. The trial Court was impressed mostly by the aspect of delay and it did not take into account the reasons pleaded by the petitioners. This Court is of the view that the addition of the proposed respondents would enable the trial Court to undertake a comprehensive adjudication. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.708 of 2006 is allowed. The trial Court shall take immediate steps to serve notices upon the impleaded parties and they, in turn, shall be under obligation to file the written statements, if any, within a period of four weeks from the date of service of notices. As soon as these steps are over, the suit shall be disposed of within eight weeks from the date on which the time granted to the proposed respondents for filing of the written statements expires. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.10.2009 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl