THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.6350 of 2009 8th April, 2011 Between :- Appala Chennamma and another .. Petitioners And Muddam Chennappa (died) per LRs., And others ..Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.6350 of 2009 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 29-7-2009 passed in I.A.No.212 of 2009 in O.S.No.69 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge clarified the orders passed in I.A.No.85/2004 and I.A.No.337/2007 in O.S.No.69/2001. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.69 of 2001. They filed the suit against Muddam Chennappa for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties situated at Lattupally village of Bijinepally Mandal. Pending the suit, Muddam Chennappa died. Therefore, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.85 of 2004 under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. to bring on record legal representatives of the sole defendant on record as defendants and they are sought for inclusion of some other properties in the suit schedule. When the said application came up for hearing, the petitioners filed a memo on 13-4-2007 confining the relief to the extent of bringing the legal representatives of the sole defendant on record. Subsequently, the said application came to be allowed and the petitioners/plaintiffs filed neat copy of the plaint. In the neat copy of the plaint, the petitioners/plaintiffs added some other properties in the plaint schedule. Thereupon, the legal representatives of the sole defendant filed I.A.No.337 of 2007 under Order IX Rule 10 read with Order XVI Rule 17 of C.P.C. to delete the names of the defendants 9 and 10 and para 4 of the plaint from amended plaint and the said petition came to be allowed on 24-4- 2008. Thereupon, the petitioners filed another neat copy of the plaint incorporating some other properties in the schedule. The defendants filed memo seeking direction to the petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the plaint as per the orders in I.A.No.85 of 2004 and I.A.No.337 of 2007. The said memo came to be allowed on 17-6-2008. The defendants filed I.A.No.212 of 2009 seeking clarification in view of some ambiguity in the order dated 17-6-2008 passed on the memo. The learned Junior Civil Judge on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, clarified the order. The clarification given by the Trial Court reads as hereunder:- “In the result, this petition is allowed clarifying the decision with regard to the orders passed in I.A.No.85/2004 and 337/2007 and also the amendment filed subsequent thereto, by holding that the respondents herein are permitted to bring the LRs of D.1 who are D.2 to D.8 showing in the amended plaint filed on 5-4-2004 and they are not allowed to make any amendment to the schedule of the plaint originally filed. Petition is ordered accordingly.” The said order is assailed in this revision. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 8/defendants. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that some of properties of the joint family are left out at the time of filing of the suit and therefore those properties are to be included in the plaint schedule. If it is the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs that some other properties have been left out at the time of filing of the suit, they have to make a separate application for inclusion of the left out properties in the plaint schedule. The order impugned in the petition does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 8th April, 2011 smr