This revision is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2, aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2017 in I.A.No.1037 of 2017 in I.A.No.305 of 2016 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 and respondent No.1/plaintiff, party-in-person. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not choose to appear. Perused the grounds of revision and the impugned order of the lower Court dated 07.11.2017 in allowing the review application in I.A.No.1037 of 2017 reviewing the order in I.A.No.305 of 2016 in the pending suit O.S.No.85 of 2011 filed for partition.

3. The grounds of the revision are that the impugned order of the Court below in allowing the review application instead of dismissal is unsustainable, contrary to law and in ignorance of the scope of the nature of the suit for partition between co-sharers, where even the defendants can ask for amendment of the pleadings of the plaintiff including in schedule, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and had it been properly considered, the review petition should have been dismissed for the order in I.A.No.305 of 2016 sought for review no way requires review in inclusion of the item of the property in the plaint schedule that is raised to include in the written statement and thereby, sought for setting aside the order of the lower Court.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 in support of the revision contentions placed reliance upon the expression of the Single Judge of this Court in Prathipati Murlidhararao @ Nehru v. Prathipati Venkataratnam Gandhi and others, 2016(6) ALD 501 and the expression of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Solavaiammal W/o Ettiappa Goundar v. Ezhumalai Goundar.,2011(5) LW 859

5. The thumb rule in a suit for partition that all the necessary parties are to be impleaded and all the properties liable for partition are to be included, can no way be in dispute. Even Order I Rules 9 and 13 C.P.C. from the combined reading clearly speak that, though any objection regarding non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties has to be taken at or before settlement of issues and otherwise it would be deemed waived same, however, is not a bar for non-taking of the plea regarding non-joinder of necessary party since same is fatal to the very maintainability of the suit. Leave about Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. enables Court to implead any necessary or proper party to a suit at any stage of the proceedings and which expression of suit includes even appeal or other proceeding including from the very wording of Section 141 C.P.C, however, that analogy of inclusion or deletion of parties or transposition of parties within the power of the Court under Order I Rule 10 or under Order XXII Rule 10 or under Sections 51 or 146 C.P.C. is not available for amendment of the pleadings of the parties, for the amendment of the pleadings are only governed by Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The very wording of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. enables the own pleadings to amend or alter and not of opposite parties more particularly from the wording the Court may allow either party. his pleadings. For more clarity same is reproduced herein:-

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

6. Leave about the due diligence clause, after commencement of trial for amendment of pleadings, it must be shown the amendment is necessary and to