THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4487 of 2009 Date of Order:27.08.2011 Between: Smt.Somavarapu Umamaheswari … Petitioner and Marella Surya Prakasa Rao and others … Respondents The Court made the following Order: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4487 of 2009 ORDER :- Petitioner/defendant No.3 filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to revise the order of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in dismissing I.A.No.470 of 2009 in O.S.No.909 of 2007, dated 24.08.2009, filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. Admittedly, the petitioner purchased the suit schedule property from defendant Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the above suit for partition of the suit schedule property claiming 1/3rd share, in which defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement stating that the plaintiff relinquished his share in their favour and accordingly executed a relinquishment deed on 03.02.1984 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Petitioner filed the written statement stating that defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly executed a regular registered sale deed in her favour under registered sale deed, dated 02.11.2006, and delivered possession of the suit schedule property and since then she has been in continuous possession; that the plaintiff, who is present along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 at the time of registration of the sale deed, has not asserted his right over the suit schedule property; that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are personally liable for all consequences as prayed by the plaintiff and that she is not at all responsible for the same. After the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was closed, when the suit is coming up for the evidence of the petitioner, she filed the impugned I.A. for amendment of the written statement stating that at the time of drafting her written statement, she has given specific instructions to the Advocate, but when she got read her written statement, she learnt that all the information furnished by her was not mentioned in her earlier written statement and proper defence was not taken in the said written statement; that it is very much essential to amend the written statement and to permit her to file amended written statement. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the petition also she has not stated about the proposed amendment sought in the written statement, which she wants to file. In view of the same, the lower court rightly dismissed the I.A. holding that the petitioner is not specific even after due diligence she could not take the plea in the earlier written statement. Since defendant Nos.1 and 2 have already pleaded about the relinquishment of the plaintiff’s share, if any issue is framed, it is always open for the petitioner to cross-examine defendant Nos.1 and 2, if they are examined as witnesses, or can summon them for the purpose of cross-examination on the plea taken by them. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J August 27, 2011 Lmv THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4487 of 2009 Date of Order:27.08.2011