M. Seetharama Murti, J.

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful petitioners/defendants 15 and 16, is directed against the orders, dated 07.09.2017, of the learned Additional Judge-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, passed in I.A. No. 355 of 2017 in O.S. No. 189 of 2002 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('the Code') to permit them to amend the written statement filed by the deceased 1st defendant, which they have adopted, by adding paragraph 13(A) after the paragraph 13 in the original written statement of the deceased 1st defendant, as stated in the petition list.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizami, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants 15 and 16; and of Sri C. Shiv Lal, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. I have perused the material record.

3. To begin with, it is to be noted that the plaintiff brought the suit against the defendants for partition of the suit schedule property into five equal and equitable shares by metes and bounds and for allotment of one such separated share to the plaintiffs. The defendants 15 and 16, who were impleaded on the death of the 1st defendant, are resisting the suit. The 1st defendant filed a written statement. The same was adopted by the defendants 15 and 16. However, during the pendency of the suit, the defendants 15 and 16 filed the aforesaid petition seeking permission to amend the written statement of the deceased 1st defendant, which they had adopted, by incorporating paragraph 13-A after paragraph 13. The said petition was resisted by the plaintiffs. On merits and by the orders impugned in this revision, the trial Court dismissed the petition of the defendants 15 and 16. Hence, they are before this Court.

4. The case of the petitioners/defendants 15 and 16 in support of their request for amendment of the written statement of the deceased 1st defendant, which they had adopted, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiffs brought the suit for partition. The suit is coming up for evidence on the side of the defendants 15 and 16, who are the legal representatives and successors-in-interest of the deceased 1st defendant. All his legal heirs and legal heirs of other deceased defendants are also brought on record. The legal heirs of the other deceased defendants 2 and 3 have not adduced any evidence. The 4th defendant has also not adduced any evidence. The 1st defendant was earlier looking after the case and he was also taking care of the suit schedule property. However, he died suddenly. The case records, files, documents and other material papers were kept by him at various places. The deceased 1st defendant filed a written statement; and, the defendants 15 and 16, who are the wife and the son of the deceased 1st defendant, adopted his written statement in which he denied the suit claim. There was also a box containing various documents and papers. While searching for the case records, documents and material papers, the said box was opened with a view to prepare for adducing evidence on the side of these defendants 15 and 16 and contest the case. While preparing to lead evidence in the above case and while searching for the material papers, these defendants traced an urdu document, dated 12th Teer 1348 Fasali, written in urdu language on one stamp paper of 8 annas of Sarkare Asafia Govt of 1905, from the box of the grand parent. The translated copy of the said document shows that it is a Will executed by Bheem Rao, the father of the deceased 1st defendant, in favour of the deceased 1st defendant, who is also known as Shanker in the family circle. As such, it has become necessary to seek amendment of the written statement of the deceased 1st defendant, which was adopted by these defendants 15 and 16, by incorporating the following paragraph 13-A after the paragraph 13 in the written