( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2, O. S. No. 77 of 1984 on the file of Additional district Judge, Vizianagaram moved an application in I. A. No. 2758 of 2002 under order VI Rule 17 read with Order VII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) praying to amend the plaint schedule by adding Item No. 5 to the plaint-A schedule.

( 2 ) THE first plaintiff, who is the mother-in-law of the first revision petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties and had died during the pendency of the suit and the daughters of the first plaintiff were brought on record as legal representatives, as plaintiffs 2 to 5 and a preliminary decree was passed for partition of plaint-A schedule immovable properties. Aggrieved by the said preliminary decree the revision petitioners - Defendants 1 and 2 preferred an appeal in A. S. No. 737 of 1987 on the file of this Court. It is also stated that this Court by judgment dated 5th day of april, 2002 had remanded the matter with certain directions and in view of the same, the said property also has to be included as Item No. 5 in the plaint-A schedule. Hence, the defendants filed the aforesaid interlocutory Application for the relief of amendment of plaint-A schedule.

( 3 ) THE said application was opposed by the sixth respondent in the said application stating that the suit was filed in the year 1984 and the defendants filed written statements at the earliest point of time and they had not taken the stand that the saw mill property is also the joint family property. It was further stated that though the defendants were aware that the property is in enjoyment of Mr. P. Sanyasi Rao, they have not raised the said objection at the appropriate time and having kept quiet for 18 years and having allowed the trespassers to be in possession beyond the statutory period, the revision petitioners- defendants 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to pray for the amendment of the plaint.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional District judge, Vizianagaram by order dated 6-1-2003, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is preferred.

( 5 ) SRI N. V. Ranganadham, learned senior Counsel representing the revision petitioners had drawn attention of this court to the order of remand made in as No. 737 of 1987 and would contend that in view of the findings recorded by this court while making the order of remand it would be definitely essential to amend the plaint, by including Item No. 5 also in the plaint-A schedule property. The learned counsel would also maintain that in the absence of Item No. 5 in the plaint-A schedule the questions involved in the suit cannot be effectively adjudicated. In the interest of all the parties to the present partition action, it would be just to permit the amendment of the plaint by including item No. 5 in plaint-A schedule. The learned Senior Counsel would also maintain that in view of the peculiarity of an action relating to partition and especially in the light of remand order, Defendants 1 and 2 also can maintain such an application to amend the plaint.

( 6 ) PER contra, Sri Upendra representing the respondents would contend that the language of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code is clear and categorical. Counsel also would maintain that by virtue of the remand order definitely an additional issue can be framed in relation thereto and the same can be decided. The Counsel would contend that at any rate, the defendants cannot pray for such a relief to amend the plaint since the same is impermissible. The learned Counsel also submitted that no doubt this was not the ground on which the application was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, but, however, in view of the fact that the application itself is not maintainable, the order impugned in the CRP does not warrant any interference.

( 7 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the affidavit filed in support of the application praying