This revision is preferred calling in question the legality of the order passed on 20.12.2014 in I.A.No.781 of 2014 in O.S.No.26 of 2006, by the XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the said petition.

The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed for partition and separate possession of the suit ‘A’ schedule land admeasuring Ac.12.08 guntas lying in Sy.No.258 of Manikonda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The suit was initially filed impleading thereto six defendants. Thereafter, Sri P. Krishna and two others got impleaded as defendants. I.A.No.505 of 2012 filed by them for impleadment was in fact dismissed on 17.02.2014. Against the order of dismissal, Sri P. Krishna and two others carried the matter by way of revision to this Court in C.R.P.No.335 of 2014 which was allowed by this Court impleading them as defendants 11 to 13, as in the meantime Smt. P. Sobha Rani and others filed I.A.No.291 of 2014 to implead them as defendants and that I.A. was allowed on 18.07.2014 impleading them as defendants 7 to 10 in the suit.

It is the case of the petitioner herein that the defendants 11 to 13 filed their written statement on 17.10.2014 bringing out therein that they purchased land of an extent of Ac.6-04 guntas in Sy.No.258 of Manikonda Village out of Ac.12-08 guntas, the suit ‘A’ schedule land. It is the case of the petitioner that, only from the contents of this written statement, he had come to know of the said sale transaction and the purchase of land of Ac.6.04 guntas by the defendants 11 to 13. Neither the 6th defendant, nor the defendants 11 to 13 enclosed any such sale deed to the written statement filed by them respectively. Hence, the petitioner moved I.A.No.781 of 2014 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C, seeking amendment of pleadings for declaring the alleged sale deeds as null and void and not binding on the petitioner. That amendment application has been resisted by defendants 11 to 13 in the suit on various grounds. It is principally contended that the nature of the suit gets completely altered and that an independent suit for declaration of the sale deeds as null and void is barred by limitation by 12.11.2014, the date on which the amendment application is moved. The learned XI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy by his order dated 20.12.2014 dismissed the interlocutory application. Hence, this revision.

Heard Sri N.Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and Sri D. Gnaneshwar Naidu for the respondents/ defendants 11 to 13.

It is appropriate to notice that the petitioner has proposed to insert the following two paragraphs in the body of the plaint as paragraphs 12-A and 12-B and also two prayers:

“12A.That the alleged sale deed bearing Doc.No.761/1969 dated 17-12-1969 to be executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of father of Defendants 11 to 13 for an extent of Ac.6-04 gts out of Ac.12-08 guntas in Sy.No.258, situated at Manikonda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

“12B. That the another alleged registered Sale deed Doc.No.5851/99 dated 01-09-1999 said to be executed by Defendant No.1 & 3 in favour of Defendant No.6 for an extent of Ac.1-00 gts Sy.No.258, situated at Manikonda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

Prayers:

“a-1). To declare the registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.761/1969 dated 17-12-1969 said to be executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of father of Defendants 11 to 13 for an extent of Ac.6-04 gts out of Ac.12-08 guntas in Sy.No.258, situated at Manikonda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.

“a-2). To declare the registered Sale deed Doc.No.5851/99 dated 01-09-1999 said to be executed by Defendant No.1 & 3 in favour of Defendant No.6 for an extent of Ac.1-00 gts Sy.No.258, situated at Manikonda