THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2883 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17.04.2009 in I.A.No.425 of 2007 in O.S.No.406 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the petition filed by the first respondent herein, to file an additional written statement listing out all the joint properties that are not included in the plaint schedule by the first plaintiff in the suit, was dismissed holding that he can as well adduce in his evidence during the course of trial with regard to the said properties. 2. Heard. 3. Trial Court observed that it was for the first respondent herein to establish the existence of the joint family properties, which were not included in the suit schedule during the course of trial and as the cross-examination of PW.1 was completed and coming up for the evidence of the first respondent- defendant No.2, he can as well adduce evidence with regard to the said properties. 4. The suit is filed for partition of properties as mentioned in the plaint schedule. Normally, after the written statement is filed by the defendant, further pleading cannot be permitted to be filed. Where a suit is for partition of immovable properties, the plaintiff must file a list of such properties. Then Court can determine and declare the rights of the parties and shares of all eligible claimants once for all. When plaintiff did not list all joint properties, the defendant can furnish the particulars of immovable properties of joint family which were omitted by plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the defendants have taken a specific plea in written statement that plaint does not disclose the entire joint family properties and some of the joint family properties are excluded. But only thing is the details of joint family properties which excluded by plaintiff have not been specifically mentioned in written statement. The present additional written statement sought to be received contained the details of properties. So trial Court ought to have allowed the petition. 5. Unless a specific plea has been taken, any amount of evidence is valueless. Mere taking of plea would not amount to evidence. Therefore, the observations of the Court below are totally incorrect. Whether the properties sought to be included as joint family properties or self acquired properties of some persons has to be decided by the Court below basing on evidence admissible on record. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2009 in I.A.No.425 of 2007 in O.S.No.406 of 2003 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Since the suit was of the year 2003, the Court below shall dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C.BHANU, J Dt:02.02.2011 usd