IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6246 of 2009 Between: Koyya Appayyamma. … Petitioner And Ambujalapu Kamayamma (Died) and two others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6246 OF 2009 ORDER:- Petitioner/plaintiff is in revision against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram dated 24.10.2009 dismissing I.A.No.1018 of 2009 filed under Order VI rule 17 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, for amendment of the plaint schedule in O.S.No.168 of 2006. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for respondent No.2. Though Respondent No.3 was served, he has not chosen to put up appearance. Admittedly, the suit itself is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the petitioner/plaintiff. Contesting the suit, respondent No.3/defendant No.3 filed written statement contending that defendant No.1 executed two gift deeds in his favour. The plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and reported no further evidence and on closure of her evidence, defendant No.2 filed her chief-affidavit as D.W.1 and when the suit is coming up for cross-examination of D.W.1, at that stage the petitioner filed the above I.A., for amendment of the schedule and for adding the two properties namely an extent of Ac.0-73 cents in S.No.175 and Ac.0-85 cents in S.No.176/3, as item No.6 of the schedule property and a consequential amendment in para 11 of the plaint about the valuation etc. Respondent No.3/defendant No.3 filed counter opposing the same, contending that though the property, sought to be added now, is very much available by the time of filing of the suit, the same was not shown intentionally in the schedule. The trial court dismissed the I.A., holding that the petitioner is in the knowledge of the gift by the time of filing of her chief affidavit and though she admitted about the execution of the gift deed in the cross-examination and those items are shown as items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule, failed to file the petition at the earliest point of time and after closer of her evidence, the above I.A. is filed and if the same is allowed, it will change the prayer of the plaint originally prayed and she failed to produce cogent reasons for non-filing at the earliest point of time. Since the suit itself is filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, if one of the properties were not included for want of particulars or otherwise, the same can be included at any point of time before conclusion of the trial. In that view of the matter, the trial court is not justified in dismissing the I.A., particularly in a suit filed for partition, for inclusion of the properties, which were not included initially. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and I.A.No.1018 of 2009 is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to defendant Nos.2 and 3, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 19th February 2010 lmv