THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3717 of 2011 Date:19th December, 2011 Between: Kataru Venkatanarayana Reddy S/o.Late K.Venkata Reddy ..... Petitioner/Plaintiff AND 1.Kataru Venkata Subba Reddy S/o.late K.Venkata Reddy & Anr. .....Respondents/Defendants *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3717 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.176 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, assailing the order, dated 05.07.2011, passed in I.A.No.1710 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.176 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule property. The defendants filed the written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendants adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings. When the suit stood posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1710 of 2011 under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC to amend the suit schedule property. It is sated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1710 of 2011, that some of the joint family properties could not be shown in the plaint schedule due to over-sight. It is further stated in the affidavit that the joint family properties were mortgaged to Cooperative Society, Rajampet, in the year 1967 and the said properties are not alienated and they are available for partition. The learned Senior Civil Judge, before receiving the counter from the defendants, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the same has been moved at the stage of arguments. The said order is assailed in this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be issued to the respondents on 14.09.2011. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel. 4 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the suit being a partition suit, the parties are entitled to seek partition of the joint family properties and that omission to include some of the properties in the plaint schedule is only due to inadvertence and therefore, the trial Court is not justified in dismissing the amendment petition being I.A.No.1710 of 2011. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Peethani Suryanarayana v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore[1] and in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India & Anr. (in I.A.No.4 of 2009 in O.S.No.6 of 2004, dated 17.08.2011). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the properties which are sought to be included to the suit schedule by way of amendment are no more available for partition and therefore, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the petition being I.A.No.1710 of 2011. 7. As could be seen from the material brought on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge proceeded to dismiss the application even before the respondents/defendants placed on record their counter. The suit being a partition suit, there cannot be any impediment in permitting the parties for including the joint family properties in the suit schedule at a subsequent stage, if sufficient reasons are offered. Since the petition came to be dismissed even before filing of counter by the respondents/defendants, I am of the view that the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside, remanding the matter back to the trial Court, for disposal of the amendment petition being i.A.No.1710 of 2011 afresh after receiving the counter of the respondents/defendants. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of setting aside the order, dated 05.07.2011, passed in I.A.No.1710 of 2011 in O.S.No.176 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, and remanding the matter back to the trial Court, for fresh disposal after receiving the counter of the respondents/defendants. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:19th December, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3717 of 2011 Date:19th December, 2011 [1] (2009) 11 SCC 308