THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4468 of 2007 Date: 27.11.2009 Between : Kallam Venkata Ramanamma and another. … Petitioners and Polareddi Venkata Rami Reddy and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4468 of 2007 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 03.07.2007, in I.A.No.636 of 2006 in O.S.No.3503 of 2003, passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, dismissing the application filed by plaintiffs under Section 151 C.P.C., Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., seeking permission to amend the plaint. 3. Petitioners are plaintiffs and respondents are defendants in the suit O.S.No.3503 of 2003. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the petitioners and the respondents are arrayed as per their array in the suit before the Court below. 5. The only point arises for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether during the trial, if a small piece of property, which went unnoticed by the plaintiffs or the defendants, can be included in the suit schedule properties that are available for partition? 6. The plaintiffs filed suit for partition. After considerable time, it was noticed by them that a small extent of Ac.0-32 cents of land in R.S.No.650/01 at Nunna village, which fell to the share of the father of the parties to the suit, was not included in the suit schedule properties for partition, as the same was not in their knowledge. It appears that upon being advised, they approached the authorities concerned and obtained the details of the said extent of land, which was not included in the suit schedule properties for partition. Hence, they filed the present interlocutory application I.A.No.636 of 2006 in O.S.No.3503 of 2003 seeking amendment to the plaint for inclusion of the said extent of Ac.0-32 cents of land also as part of the suit schedule property for partition and the same was rejected by the Court below. Hence, the present civil revision petition. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the Court below had already taken into account certain facts relating to the disputed land and recorded a finding that the defendants, on the demise of the parents, got partitioned through a registered document bearing No.1984/2003, dated 15.3.2003, in which the disputed property was also one of the items. 8. From the above, what appears is that the Court below had arrived at the conclusion that the property, which is now sought to be included in the suit schedule properties for partition, was already partitioned by the defendants in the year 2003 after the demise of the parents of both the parties. It is rather indiscernible as to how the defendants alone can partition the suit schedule property, which includes the disputed property now sought to be included in the suit schedule properties for partition, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. However, this issue is a pure question of fact, which this Court cannot go into nor can express any view. 9. I am of the considered view that the Court below ought not have expressed any view, at the threshold, about the earlier partition pertaining to the disputed property, which is now sought to be included. I am also of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below, at this stage, would certainly prejudice the interest of the plaintiffs. In normal course, in a suit for partition, all the questions of fact ought to be gone into and decided on merits, instead of giving scope for proliferation of litigation. All the averments that are being made by the defendants can rather be agitated before the Court below in the manner permissible under law and the Court below, uninfluenced by its own view already expressed in the impugned order, has to essentially arrive at a conclusion on merits basing on the evidence on record. 10. For the foregoing, the impugned order suffers from illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and I.A.No.636 of 2006 is allowed. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned order, dated 03.07.2007, in I.A.No.636 of 2006 in O.S.No.3503 of 2003, passed by the Court below. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 27.11.2009. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4468 of 2007 27.11.2009 (Msr)