CHILAKANI VENKATA RAO Vs. CH LAKSHMAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for partition filed by the brothers of the revision-petitioner, who is the first defendant, filed a petition to implead one Nataniel as a party to the suit on the ground that his brothers alienated some property to Nataniel and so he is a necessary party to the suit and that petition was allowed and that order was confirmed by this Court in a revision. Thereafter, revision-petitioner filed a petition seeking amendment of the plaint for inclusion of the properties alienated to Nataniel, which was dismissed on the ground that the defendant in a suit cannot seek amendment of the plaint. Hence, this revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for revision-petitioner is that since the transferee of the property belonging to the family was ordered to be impleaded as a party to the suit, if the properties alienated to him are also included in the plaint schedule, it would be convenient for the parties to work out the equities at the time of final decree and so the Court below was in error in dismissing the petition.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs.