THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Dated this the 2nd day of December 2009. Civil Revision Petition No. 5182 of 2009. Between: Tirumala Venkateshwarlu. ……Petitioner vs. Tirumala Prameela Devi and 3 others. ……..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Civil Revision Petition No. 5182 of 2009. ORAL ORDER The petitioner in this revision preferred I.A.No. 736 of 2008 in the suit O.S.No. 2 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Adilabad seeking leave of the court to file additional written statement on behalf of the 1st defendant, under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. The suit has been instituted by the respondents 1 to 5 herein, seeking partition of certain properties mentioned in the schedules attached to the plaint. The petitioner herein, who is the 1st defendant, has filed his written statement and it is stated therein that the suit schedule property Nos.1 and 2 are jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 and that the defendant No.1 is entitled for his share in those two properties. He has denied that schedule property No.3 is the joint property. He has claimed exclusive ownership rights over the said suit schedule property No.3. He has specifically pleaded that the father of the plaintiffs late D.Venkatesham has gifted the suit schedule property No.3 to him on 31.10.1989 vide registered gift deed bearing No. 1574 of 1989. Now after the matter has been referred to Lok Adalath, he appears to have moved the present application trying to contend that the suit schedule property Nos.1 and 2 were gifted by his grand father to him vide registered gift deeds bearing Nos. 1634 of 1989 and 1512 of 1989 respectively. These pleas now sought to be set up by way of filing additional written statement are totally inconsistent with the pleas taken in the writ statement, in particular with reference to suit schedule properties 1 and 2. Relied on the ratio laid down by this Court in Nagabhushanam vs. Bank of India (1988 (1) ALT 657) wherein it was held that a combined reading of Order VII Rule 9 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC makes it clear that additional pleadings which are inconsistent with the earlier pleadings cannot be permitted by the Court and the only exception carved out in Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. is an amendment which can be permitted to the pleadings even if such pleadings are containing the allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings, the learned I Additional District Judge, Adilabad dismissed the I.A.No. 736 of 2008. The conclusion reached by the learned I Additional District, Adilabad in dismissing the I.A. is absolutely correct. The only exception recognized is amendment of pleadings even if such pleadings contain inconsistent pleadings but not raising the same by way of additional written statement. Therefore, there is no merit in the civil revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 2.12.2009. krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Civil Revision Petition No. 5182 of 2009. Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009.