The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a revision petition challenging an order allowing parties to be added in a partition suit. The court held the order justified, noting the lower court rightly declined to amend the plaint regarding share entitlements based on it being for respondents' written statement.
Revision petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Tuesday, the 23rd day of August, 2011
Present:
The Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar
C.R.P.No. 5768 of 2010
Between:
Kambe Tirumalesu and others
..Petitioners
and
Kambe Kumari and others
…Respondents
The Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar
C.R.P.No. 5768 of 2010
O r d e r:
Order dated:08-09-2010 made in I.A.No. 335 of 2005 in O.S.No. 44 of 2003 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta is in challenge in this revision petition.
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs. They filed the present suit for partition, initially against their own parents, being represented by their maternal grand-mother. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings, the first defendant, who is their father demised. An application has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC to add them as Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit and also seeking amendment to add Paragraph-II (b) after the words “appropriate relief” and to add the words “that they are entitled to 2/5th share in the suit schedule property”. Their specific case is that the first defendant, their father married the third defendant about eight years back; the fourth defendant is born to them and that they being the wife and daughter of the first defendant are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property.
3. Counters were filed by the respondents and the said petition was resisted. However, the lower court by the impugned order allowed the said petition holding that the petitioners are necessary parties; but, no orders were passed with regard to their request to add paragraph-II (b), after the words “appropriate relief”, as contended by them.
4. The original plaintiffs have challenged the said order in this revision petition.
5. The only contention of the petitioners herein is that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who filed the petition to come on record as Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 cannot ask the plaintiffs to amend their own plaint to the effect that the proposed defendants are entitled to 2/5th share in the plaint schedule property and to make other consequential amendments.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the lower court though allowed the petition of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to be added as parties to the suit, it consciously did not consider their request for amendment of plaint averments to the effect that they are entitled to 2/5th share in the plaint schedule property.
7. Now the only point that arises for consideration is whether the revision petition is sustainable? 8. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 requested to add paragraph – II (b) after the words “appropriate relief”, the lower court has rightly did not consider their request. The lower court by giving cogent and valid reasons allowed the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 to the extent of adding them as parties to the suit. Therefore the order under challenge is perfectly justified and no interference is required. It is for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, if they are so advised, to file their written statement making counter claim in accordance with Law. There are no merits in the revision petition.
9. Accordingly, subject to the observations made supra, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
August 23, 2011.
________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.
*BVS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the order allowing addition of parties as defendants is sustainable.
Whether the lower court erred in not allowing the request to amend the plaint to add a share entitlement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kambe Tirumalesu and others
Kambe Kumari and others
B. Chandra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
