IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2986 OF 2010 Between: Salee @ Munagapati Bharatamma and two others …Petitioners A n d Chennaboina Mallesh Yadav and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2986 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-04-2010 in I.A.No.1931 of 2009 in O.S.No.2453 of 2006, on the file of the VII-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent (D-2) under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file additional written statement, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. Perused the records. 3. The petitioners herein filed a suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for separate possession of one-fourth share each to the plaintiffs. Initially, the first defendant filed written statement and the second defendant filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by D-1. After settlement of necessary issues, the trial of the suit commenced. On completion of recording of evidence, the matter stood posted for arguments. At that stage, the first respondent herein (D-2) filed the application I.A.No.1931 of 2009 seeking permission to file a separate written statement of his own, wherein he raised the plea of limitation, non-maintainability of the suit for non-joinder of the daughters of the deceased Narayana and also non-inclusion of all the properties. The petitioners/plaintiffs opposed the application on the ground that the trial of the suit has already been completed and the matter is at the stage of arguments. The learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application observing that the additional written statement can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs on account of the pleas raised by D-2 in the proposed additional written statement. 4. It is to be noted that initially the second defendant has not filed any written statement of his own. Though in the impugned order it is mentioned that the case is coming up for trial, a perusal of the certified copy of the docket proceedings produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners would disclose that the defendants’ side evidence was also closed and the matter was posted for arguments to 22-02-2010. 5. Irrespective of the stage of the proceedings, as the second defendant has raised certain pleas regarding the maintainability of the suit, bar of limitation and non- joinder of necessary parties, it is considered that an opportunity be given to the second defendant to place the said pleas on record with an equal opportunity to the plaintiffs to meet the said pleas on their merits. The plaintiffs are also at liberty to take necessary steps to implead all the proper and necessary parties to the suit besides filing a rejoinder to the additional written statement proposed to be filed by the second defendant. The impugned order, permitting the second defendant to file the additional written statement, does not, therefore, call for any interference, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. On the other hand, it is only just and proper that the parties are permitted to place all their pleas and contentions on record so that the matter can be disposed of on merits in an effective and comprehensive manner. The trial Court is directed to frame additional issues, if any, arising out of the additional pleadings and also permit both parties to adduce such other/further evidence as they may desire to let in. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 06th June, 2011 Lrkm