1. This Revision petition is filed challenging the order dt.05-10-2013 in I.A.No.1009 of 2013 in O.S.No.450 of 2004 of the X Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The said suit was filed by petitioners herein for partition of the plaint schedule property into 14 equal shares and to allot 7 shares to 2. The said suit was filed by petitioners herein for partition of the plaint schedule property into 14 equal shares and to allot 7 shares to them and for separate possession of the said share. Written statement was filed in the year 2005. Issues were framed in the year 2006 and on 12-09-2007, an affidavit in lieu of chief examination was filed by 2nd petitioner.

3. The petitioners filed application I.A.No.405 of 2009 for amendment of the plaint schedule to correct the extent of the property shown in the plaint schedule as 4200 sq. yds. instead of 1000 sq. yds mentioned in the plaint originally. It was allowed and the plaint schedule was amended.

4. The petitioners thereafter filed I.A.No.269 of 2011 again for amendment of the plaint for correction of the plaint schedule by changing the door number and the boundaries thereto. This was opposed by the respondents. But the trial Court allowed the application and this amendment was carried out.

5. When petitioners had filed the suit, they had paid ad volerem Court Fee of Rs.1,80,026/- as they were not in joint possession of the plaint schedule property. On 04-02-2011, seven years after filing of the suit, a docket order was passed by the Court below requiring its office to address a letter to the concerned Sub-Registrar to furnish the valuation of the property as on 04-05-2004. In response to it, the Joint Sub Registrar addressed a letter dt.31-03-2011 taking a view that the valuation of the property should be Rs.19,800/- per square yard. Taking this into account, the trial Court passed order dt.28-07-2011 calculating court fee payable on the said basis and directing payment of deficit Court fee by the petitioners.

6. This was challenged in C.R.P.No.3472 of 2011 by the petitioners 2 to 4. Stay of the said order was granted. Ultimately the Revision was allowed on 15-07-2013 setting aside the order of the trial Court and directing it to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

7. The case of the petitioners is that 1st petitioner is the first wife of one Md. Ishaque, petitioner no.s 2-4 are their children, on the death of her husband , she and other petitioners are entitled to 7/14 share in the plaint schedule property. The respondents are the children of Late Md.Ishaque through another wife Mrs. Mariam Begum and respondents 1-4 are their children. The respondents deny the relationship of 1st petitioner with Md.Ishaque and contend that 1st petitioner is a stranger to the family and she is not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule property. Pending suit, the 1st petitioner died and the other petitioners, who are her legal representatives, are contesting it.

8. It is alleged by the petitioners that part of the land which is subject matter of the suit was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for laying road leading to Birla Planetarium; that on 06-02-2006 an award No.B/1147/2004 was passed by the competent authority apart from a subsequent award dt.18-05-2009 in proceedings in File No.E/793/87; that in the former award, a sum of Rs.63,16,755/- was awarded and in the latter award, a sum of Rs.6,17,93,352/- was awarded apart from interest; that against the former award, O.P.No.6 of 2006 was filed before the 1st Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and against the later award, O.P.No.2541 of 2010 was filed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

9. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1009 of 2013 to amend the plaint by inserting certain paragraphs in the body of the plaint and also to amend the relief portion in the plaint by claiming (i) a share in the above compens