SHAHZADI BEGUM Vs. SYED QUAMRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dtd. 22/1/2019 in I.A.No.1274 of 2018 in O.S.No.1307 of 2013 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') on the file of learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

(3.) The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record available before this Court are that the plaintiff has filed suit vide O.S.No.1307 of 2013 for partition against defendant Nos.1 to 12 in respect of suit schedule 'A' to 'C' properties on the death of her parents. Defendant No.1, who is the brother of the plaintiff, filed a written statement on 24/3/2014 denying the claim of the plaintiff alleging that during the life time of plaintiff's parents, the share of the plaintiff was settled by her father by way of gift and silver articles from time to time, as such the plaintiff has no claim in the schedule of properties. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.1274 of 2018 in O.S.No.1307 of 2013 seeking leave of the court to file an additional written statement on behalf of the defendant No.1 for proper adjudication of the case. It was alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.1274 of 2018 that he could not instruct his earlier counsel with reference to pleadings, as such he may be permitted to file additional written statement. A counter was filed by the plaintiff to the petition in I.A.No.1274 of 2018 denying the averments of the petition and mainly contended that no reason was assigned by the defendant No.1 as to on which grounds he is intending to file additional written statement. It was further contended by the plaintiff that issues have been framed on 8/3/2016 and evidence was adduced before the Court on 13/3/2017, as such no leave can be granted to file additional written statement, when evidence was already adduced. The trial Court has permitted the defendant No.1 to file additional written statement vide impugned order dtd. 22/1/2019. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.