This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 31.10.2013 in I.A.No.554 of 2013 in O.S.No.148 of 2009 on the file of the learned XI Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District.

I have heard Mr. B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 8, Mr. B. Satyanarayana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.5, and Mr. N. Jairaj, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7.

All the learned counsel submitted that respondents 2 to 4 are sailing with the petitioner and, hence, there is no need for service of notice on them.

The short issue that arises for consideration in this revision petition is ‘whether the order under revision rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment of the plaint is in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure?’.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above-mentioned suit filed for partition of items 1 to 28 of ‘B’ schedule lands by metes and bounds, granting 20% share each to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 etc. The other reliefs sought in the suit are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. In paragraph 8 of the plai