IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4980 of 2009 Between: K.Lakshmi Rajyam … Petitioner And M.Subrahmanyeswara Rao and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4980 OF 2009 ORDER: - Petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to revise the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Gudivada, in allowing I.A.No.198 of 2009 in O.S.No.90 of 2007, dated 09.09.2009, filed for amendment of the written statement in the suit filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.2 filed the impugned I.A. for amendment of the written statement stating that he came to know that the schedule property was purchased with the ancestral nucleus and that the plaintiff is also having share. Earlier to the same, he denied any such share to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff got it under a gift deed executed by defendant No.1. The trial Court after considering the material on record held that under the proposed amendment no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff is claiming 1/4th share, whereas defendant No.1 contends that she is entitled for only 1/8th share, which can be decided only after full fledged trial and accordingly allowed the I.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of the chief examination i.e., after commencement of the trial to the suit, without cross-examining the plaintiff, the I.A. cannot be entertained in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Supreme Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami and ors. V. Kiran Appaso SwamI[1] held that once the trial court exercised the discretion by allowing the amendment, the High Court should not interfere with such discretion unless it will have the effect of withdrawing the admission, if any, made earlier. By virtue of the present amendment, the defendants wants to plead that the suit schedule property is an ancestral property acquired through a joint family nucleus, in which apart from the plaintiff having a share, the defendants are also entitled to 1/8th share. Admittedly, the plaintiff is claiming 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. In view of the same, no prejudice will cause to the petitioner, if the said amendment is allowed. It is fairly well settled that in a suit for partition, even before passing a final decree, the schedule property and its shares can always be altered. Since the Court came to the conclusion that the said amendment is necessary for disposal of the case, the discretion exercised by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It is always open for the petitioner to reopen his evidence and lead necessary evidence, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 14.10.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4980 of 2009 14.10.2011 lmv [1] AIR 2007 SC 1663(1)