HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4350 OF 2008 DATE:01-07-2011 BETWEEN Ganipisetti Nagamalleswari And another …Petitioners AND Kondapalli Satyam and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4350 OF 2008 ORDER: Plaintiffs filed this revision to revise the order of Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, dated 08.4.2008 allowing I.A.No.1212 of 2004 in O.S.No.23 of 2001 filed by first respondent to set aside the preliminary decree passed on 22.4.2003 in the suit filed for partition. Petitioners herein instituted the above suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, in which, a preliminary decree was passed on 22.4.2003. Whereas, the first respondent herein, who is a third party to the suit proceedings filed the impugned application seeking to set aside the preliminary decree contending that he purchased the property which is shown as item No.3 in the suit schedule, that the petitioners though having knowledge of the same, have not chosen to implead him in the suit and in fact, he filed a suit in O.S.No.653 of 2002 against the mother of the petitioners herein for permanent injunction. Apart from the impugned I.A., the first respondent also filed I.A.No.1213 of 2004 to implead him as a party-defendant to the suit and the same was allowed. Subsequent to allowing the said I.A., the impugned I.A. is also allowed setting aside the preliminary decree passed in the suit. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that unless the suit is restored to its file, the third party-first respondent herein cannot be impleaded as a party to the suit and that the preliminary decree passed in the suit cannot be set aside. This Court does not find any merit in the said contention. It is well settled that a party can be added in a suit even after passing a preliminary decree until a final decree is passed (see Akkamma Shetti v. Chandro Shetti [1924 Madras 648], Syed Mohiddin v. Abdul Rahim [AIR 1964 AP 260] and R.A.Narasimga Rao v. Chunduru Sarada [AIR 1976 AP 226]). It is also well settled that a preliminary decree passed earlier in the suit can be altered any number of times until the final decree is passed. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 01, 2011 Tsr.