IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2552 OF 2011 Between: Ravula Madhusudhan Reddy and another …Petitioner A n d Ravula Srinivas Reddy ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2552 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.06.2011 in I.A.No.838 of 2010 in O.S.No.111 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein, the plaintiff, under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, seeking leave to file rejoinder, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against his brother the petitioner herein for partition. In the plaint, it is averred that the suit schedule property fell to the share of the plaintiff in a partition of the ancestral properties and family partition, but as they were entered in the revenue records in the name of plaintiff’s father, a registered gift deed dated 22.12.2003 was executed by the plaintiff’s father in favour of the plaintiff and ever since the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the absolute owner. The defendant filed a written statement denying the partition and also the gift deed and contending that the property continued to be ancestral and there has been no partition and the first defendant has one-third undivided share in each of the plaint schedule items. The defendant further denied that his father executed any gift deed in favour of the plaintiff and the said gift deed, even if true, is not valid and binding upon D-1 who is having one-third undivided share in the joint family properties. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.838 of 2010 seeking to file a rejoinder. 4. A perusal of the proposed rejoinder would go to show that the plaintiff was only seeking to re-assert his claim based both on partition and gift deed and elaborate the said plea with other averments. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the proposed rejoinder is seeking to introduce a new case based on new cause of action inconsistent with the earlier plea in the plaint. 5. As seen from the plaint, the plaintiff has based his claim for the suit property both on the strength of the partition and also the gift deed and the defendant has denied the same and contended in his written statement that he is having one-third undivided share in the joint family properties, including the plaint schedule items and the alleged gift deed, even if true, is not binding on him, a coparcener. 6. The truth or otherwise of the alleged partition and the truth, validity and binding nature of the gift deed, are all matters to be considered by the trial Court on evidence during the course of trial. Inasmuch as the plaintiff has referred to the gift deed in the plaint also, the proposed rejoinder reiterating the claim based on the said gift deed, does not amount to introducing a new case or altering the cause of action. The impugned order, permitting the plaintiff to file rejoinder, does not, therefore, call for any interference. The petitioners / defendants are at liberty to file an additional written statement, if so advised, to meet the claims/averments made in the proposed rejoinder. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th July, 2011 Lrkm.