HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 943 OF 2010. DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2010. BETWEEEN Guduru Rama Seshamma …..Petitioner and Gottimukkala Thathaiah (died) and ors … Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 943 OF 2010. ORDER: The petitioner herein is the plaintiﬀ, who invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail the order dated 11.02.2010 whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, dismissed I.A.No. 82 of 2010 in O.S.No. 76 of 2006 ﬁled under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiﬀ ﬁled the aforesaid suit for partition and in the said suit trial has over and the suit is posted for judgment. At that stage, it is stated by the petitioner in the aﬃdavit ﬁled before the Court below that the ﬁrst defendant died on 01.06.2009 and therefore it became necessary for amendment of the cause title and portions of shares in the property as per the personal law governing the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, the petitioner ﬁled the present impugned application seeking amendment of the cause title and Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the plaint. Even in the grounds as sought to be amended in the aforesaid paragraphs are only consequential portion of the shares of plaint schedule property and pleadings including cause of action, valuation etc., Therefore it is the case of the petitioner that it became necessary for amendment of the plaint. However, the Court below did not ﬁnd favour for the petitioner and dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that the earlier application ﬁled for the very same relief under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC in I.A.No. 946 of 2009 was dismissed on 18.9.2009 and this petition is liable to be dismissed by virtue of the principle of res judicata. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the material on record, it is to be seen that earlier the petitioner ﬁled I.A.No. 946 of 2009 under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC to bring the legal representatives of the ﬁrst defendant on record, however, the same was dismissed on 18.09.2009. Now the impugned application is filed under Order VI Rule 4 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. The scope and nature of both the applications are entirely diﬀerent. There is a change in the cause title as well as portions of shares in the plaint due to the death of the ﬁrst defendant. According to the petitioner, the ﬁrst defendant died on 1.6.2009. Therefore, the petitioner sought to bring Legal Representatives of the ﬁrst defendant on record and as such, she ﬁled I.A.No. 946 of 2009 under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, however, the same was dismissed. Later, the impugned application is ﬁled under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint as well as the cause title. It is to be seen that irrespective of dismissal of the earlier application to bring LRs on records, the fact remains that there is a change in the portions of shares and also in the cause title due to the death of the parties to the suit for partition and as such it became necessary for amendment of the plaint. Therefore, on a perusal of the entire aﬃdavit and especially pleadings sought to be amended, it cannot be said that on account of dismissal of the earlier application, the impugned application is liable to be dismissed by virtue of the principle of res judicata. Inasmuch as the one of the parties to the suit for partition, died, necessarily there arises necessity to take steps for change in the cause title and portion of shares of the property under partition. Therefore, it can as well take note of the same. In view of the same, the order under revision is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the I.A.No. No. 82 of 2010 in O.S. No. 76 of 2006 stands allowed. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. Msnr.