This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 5-8-2005 in I.A. No.750 of 2005 in O.S. No.40 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

2. The revision petitioners are the Plaintiffs 2, 4 and 6 in O.S. No.40 of 1994. The suit was initially filed by the father of the petitioners herein by name Sardar Darshan Singh for cancellation of the registered gift deed dated 3-5-1994 executed by him in favour of the defendant. It was pleaded by him that the gift deed in question was void since the signatures on the document were obtained by the defendant by misrepresentation without revealing the contents of the document by taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was aged 90 years and was unable to read the document. The suit was initially decreed ex parte on 7-2-1996. However, on an application made by the defendant, the said ex parte decree was set aside on 22-12-2004 and the suit was reopened. In the meanwhile, the sole plaintiff Sardar Darshan Singh died and the Plaintiffs 2 to 13 were brought on record being the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff.

3. The defendant, who is no other than the daughter of the deceased first plaintiff, in her written statement denied the plaint allegations and claimed that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit premises. It is claimed that the gift deed dated 3-5-1994 was executed by the deceased first plaintiff on his own, out of love and affection and possession of the premises in question was delivered to her immediately. It is stated that she had leased out the premises to one R. Mohana Rao, who in collusion with the plaintiff and his sons got the suit filed for cancellation of the gift deed on the basis of the alleged revocation deed dated 28-5-1994.

4. While so, the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs 2, 4 and 6 filed I.A. No.750 of 2005 under Order VII Rule 9 CPC seeking leave to file rejoinder to the written statement on the ground that it is necessary to place on record several other facts regarding the possession and title of the suit property which are necessary and essential for disposal of the case. It was contended by them that the suit, in which an ex pane decree was passed long back, was reopened against the legal heirs of the sole plaintiff in the year 2004 and in the written statement filed by the defendant thereafter so many false allegations are made and therefore, it is necessary to grant them leave to file a rejoinder. They also denied the plea of the defendant in her written statement that she has been in possession of the plaint schedule property.

5. The said application was opposed by the defendant stating that since the cause of action in the suit as pleaded in the plaint arose on 3-5-1994, the real controversy has to be decided only on the basis of the facts pleaded in the plaint and the allegations made by the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff cannot be taken into consideration. It is also contended that the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff, who are subsequently brought on record as plaintiffs are entitled to take up the suit at the stage at which it was left when the plaintiff died and they cannot be permitted to plead any new facts by way of

rejoinder.

6. The Court below after hearing both the parties, by order, dated 5-8-2005, dismissed I.A. No.750 of 2005 holding that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to set up a new plea as against the pleadings taken before. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

8. According to the plaint dated

2-6-1991, filed by the deceased-first plaintiff, he had leased out the suit schedule house to one R. Mohana Rao and that the said tenant was in occupation of the said premises. While alleging that the gift deed, dated 3-5-1994, was got executed by the defendant by misrepresentation, it was pleaded