HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.5237/2007 Date of Order: 19-11-2010 Kilari Sita Lakshmi …Petitioner V. 1. Vandrasi Varahalu and others ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.5237/2007 Oral Order: 8th defendant in OS No.924/2005 on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, filed this revision petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the orders passed in IA No.222/2007 in OS No.924/2005 dt. 8-10-2007, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the 8th defendant under Order 8 Rule 1 and Sec.151 CPC seeking permission of the court to file her separate additional written statement in the suit to contest the suit has been dismissed. The case of the petitioner/8th defendant is that her parents died intestate. The first defendant is the wife of her elder brother; defendants 2 to 7 are their children and 9th defendant is her sister. Her brother filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The first defendant, who is her sister- in-law represented to the petitioner that all of them will get shares in the property and further represented that she would take up the matter on behalf of the petitioner also. The petitioner came to know that the first defendant filed her written statement and on her behalf also the advocate filed a memo adopting the written statement of the first defendant. Issues were framed. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs examined P.W. 1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. When the case was coming up for further evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, the above IA is filed contending that her sister-in-law ie., the first defendant filed her written statement stating that her mother executed a will bequeathing her property in favour of the elder brother of the petitioner, as such item No.2 of the schedule property is the absolute property of her elder brother, for which the defendants 1 to 7 are entitled for the same. She has no knowledge about the said fact. When she enquired, she came to know that advocate appearing filed a memo adopting the written statement of the first defendant. In fact she has not given any instructions to the advocate at any time. On coming to know of the above facts, she got issued a notice dt. 12-3-2007 to the advocates, who filed memo adopting the written statement of the first defendant. The advocates withdrawn the vakalath of the petitioner. Therefore, she wants to file her separate additional written statement. The trial court after noticing the adoption memo, which was not signed by the petitioner/8th respondent, except advocate, dismissed the petition. Admittedly, the suit is filed for partition and separate possession. In a suit for partition, any party can transpose as plaintiff /defendant and take all the pleas as are available to them. The trial court ought not to have dismissed the petition on hyper technical grounds since the petition is filed seeking permission of the court to file separate additional written statement in a suit filed for partition and separate possession. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the trial court is set-aside. IA No.222/2002 on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada shall stand allowed permitting the petitioner/8th defendant to contest the suit by filing her separate additional written statement. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.19-11-2010 Kmr