ORDER :

1. An important question that fell for consideration in this revision is whether a party can seek amendment of the pleadings of another party.

This revision petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order, dated 27.11.2019, dismissing I.A. No. 539 of 2019 in O.S. No. 235 of 2013 on the file of the Court of XIII Additional District Judge, Krishna District, at Vijayawada, filed by the 4th defendant under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to amend the plaint by incorporating the proposed amendments.

2. Heard Ms. K. Pallavi, learned counsel, representing Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/4th defendant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

3. The case of the 4th defendant in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seeking amendment, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for other reliefs. The plaintiff failed to mention in the plaint schedule an extent of Ac. 5.02 cents of land in R.S. No. 78/3, Petrampadu village, Ganginenipalem Gram Panchayat. On enquiry, the 4th defendant came to know that the land of Ac. 5.02 cents is originally purchased by his paternal aunt, Buddi Rajeswaramma, in an auction in E.P. No. 302 of 1977 in O.S. No. 780 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif, Vijayawada, as the father of the petitioner, Venkateswara Rao, got the property purchased through his sister, Rajeswaramma, and during his lifetime, he enjoyed the property and thereafter, the plaintiff in this suit obtained sale deed from the paternal aunt on 24.02.2005, knowing the fact that the property is joint family property purchased by late Venkateswara Rao. Hence, the property mentioned in the schedule is to be added as proposed item No. 11 in the plaint schedule for proper adjudication of the suit.

(b) The amendment sought in the memo filed on behalf of the 4th defendant is shown hereunder:

“Add item No. 11 in the plaint schedule:

“Item No. A

Krishna District, Ibrahimpatnam Sub-Registry, Ganginenipalem Gram Panchayat area, Petrampadu village R.S. No. 78/3A, an extent of Ac. 2.07 cents of land is being bounded by:

East: Property of Kovvuru Seetharamanjaneyulu

South: N.S.P Canal

West: Property of Vallapudi Venkata Ramireddy

North: Property of Dupaguntla Rama Rao

Item No. B

Krishna District, Ibrahimpatnam Sub-Registry, Ganginenipalem Gram Panchayat area, Petrampadu village R.S. No. 78/3C, an extent of Ac. 2.95 cents of land is being bounded by:

East: Property of Kovuru Seetharamanjaneyulu

South: Polimera Donka

West: Property of Vallapudi Venkata Ramireddy etc.

North: NSP Canal

Item No. A and B in total Ac. 5.02 cents of land along with all easement rights.”

4. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the petition and stating that Smt. Buddi Rajewawaramma w/o Buddi Venkata Ram Chowdary purchased the property in a Court auction in E.P. No. 302 of 1997 in O.S. No. 780 of 1974 on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. A sale certificate was issued in her favour and she took possession of the property and since then, she was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, the 1st respondent/plaintiff purchased the said agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 5.02 cents in R.S. No. 78/3A and 78/3C from Buddi Rajeswaramma, for a consideration of Rs. 2,46,000/- and obtained registered sale deed, dated 24.02.2005, and took possession of the property. Since then, this respondent has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owner thereof. Thus, it is clear that the said property is not joint property left by Nagoji Venkateswara Rao. The petitioner also did not include the said property in the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 21 of 2001 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, filed by the petitioner for partition of some of the joint family prop