THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5883 OF 2010 Dated: 05.09.2011 Between: N.Shiva Reddy (died) per LRs Smt. Lakshmi and 9 others ..... PETITIONERS AND Nallabapani Shyamalamma (died) per LRs N.Ram Reddy and another ..... RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5883 OF 2010 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.11.2010 in I.A.No.334 of 2009 in A.S.No.44 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. A.S.No.44 of 2005 was preferred by the respondent herein aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S.No.289 of 1997 on the file of the Court of II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar filed by them for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.289 of 1997 and the respondents in A.S.No.44 of 2005. During the pendency of A.S.No.44 of 2005, there is an amendment to Hindu Succession Act by Act 39 of 2005 and in view of the said amendment the appellants/respondents herein filed I.A.No.334 of 2009 for amendment of the plaint in O.S.No.289 of 1997. The said application was allowed by the Court below and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Court below committed serious error in allowing the amendment of plaint without appreciating the fact that the marriage of the plaintiff had taken place in the year 1955 and therefore the amendment by Act 39 of 2005 has no application. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners, on the face of it relates to the merits of the case which requires consideration at the time of hearing of the appeal. In view of the amendment to Hindu Succession Act which came into force during the pendency of the appeal, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs/respondents herein were entitled to seek amendment of the plaint and the same was rightly allowed by the Court below. Hence the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Court below shall decide the Appeal following due process of law without having regard to any of the observations made in this order or in the order under Revision. No costs. ​ ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 05.09.2011 Ivd