ORDER: - The petitioner filed O.S.No.30 of 2002 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, against the respondents, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial of the suit is yet to commence. He filed I.A.No.1365 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to amend the body of the plaint as well as the prayer portion. One of the proposed amendments is about the correction of house numbers in item No.4 of B-schedule. The petitioner also intended to incorporate the prayer for a decree of administration and other ancillary reliefs. The application was opposed by defendant No.2. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through its order, dated 11.09.2007. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Sri Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the old house numbers in item No.4 of B-schedule were correctly mentioned but in mentioning the corresponding new numbers, some mistake has crept in and that the petitioner intends to rectify the same. He further contends that the relief claimed by the petitioner for a decree of administration is permissible in law and that the trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to raise the same for effective resolution of the disputes.

3. Though the contesting respondents were served, they have not chosen to enter appearance.

4. In a suit for partition, it is possible that some of the items of properties mentioned in a schedule are found not available for partition and during the course of trial or before the final decree is passed, new items are added, depending on their availability. It was open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of the Court about the variation as to availability of properties for partition.

5. Be that as it may, the application filed by the petitioner for correction of house numbers is only in the context of a mistake in correlation of the new numbers with the old ones. The old house numbers in item No.4 of B-schedule remain the same. The effort is only to incorporate the corresponding new numbers. As long as the same property is mentioned in the schedule, there must not be any difficulty in acceding to the request of the petitioner.

6. Coming to the second limb of the prayer in the application for amendment, this Court is of the view that it is totally impermissible. A mere suit for partition cannot be converted into the one of administration. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of the Madras High Court in M. Abdul Razack vs. S. Mohammad Shah. In one sentence in that judgment, an observation was made to the effect that a suit for partition among Mohammadan co-sharers is in the nature of administration suit. No authority was indicated therefore, nor any discussion was undertaken.

7. The parameters for a suit for partition on the one hand and a suit for administration on the other are totally different from each other. Further, a suit for partition has absolutely nothing to do with the religion, to which the parties thereto belong. The effect of the religion, if at all, would be as to the pattern of succession and nothing more. The basic tenets of a suit for partition viz., ascertainment of shares, determination of the properties available for partition, the division of the properties in metes and bounds and allotment of such properties to the parties as per their shares, remain the same, irrespective of the religion, to which the parties belong. A suit for administration, on the other hand, virtually results in a temporary vesting of the entire schedule property in the Court and administration of the same by the Court itself. These two different streams of reliefs hardly coalesce. The Court, on the one hand, cannot remain as the custodian of the property, and on the other, distribute the same to the co-sharers.

8. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed, permitting the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document