ORDER :

1. The plaintiff in the suit filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dated 24.08.2019 of learned Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Court, Guntur in I.A.No.755 of 2019 in O.S.No.39 of 2011.

2. In this revision, the point raised and argued is that the learned trial Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in the manner that is expected to be exercised by law and failed to consider the application appropriately and went beyond the legal requirement and considered about merits of the matter and therefore, the order shall be upset.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.12, 16 and 19 made their submissions and other respondents did not appear and contest.

4. Therefore, the question that falls for consideration is :

“Whether the learned trial Court committed error in exercising its jurisdiction and passed an infirm order requiring interference?

5. The controversy is about refusal of the trial Court in permitting the plaintiff to have the plaint amended in terms of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. Having lost the prayer, the plaintiff has come up with this revision.

6. O.S.No.39 of 2011 was filed by the sole plaintiff/revision petitioner as against 18 defendants. The suit is for partition of properties. Schedule is appended to the plaint showing immovable properties in item Nos.1 to 5. The prayers in the suit are :

(a) for partition of the plaint schedule properties into 5 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and to deliver the same to the plaintiff.

(b) to ascertain mesne profits on the plaint schedule properties on separate application.

(c) to award costs.

(d) to pass such other orders as are just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

7. The averments in the plaint are that Smt. Venkayamma and defendant No.1 are wife and husband and they begot children, who are daughters and sons. The plaintiff and defendant No.3 are the sons. Defendant No.2 and defendant No.4 are the daughters. It is stated that defendant No.1 inherited properties and he has been the kartha of the joint family and has been managing them. He was diverting the joint family funds into his real estate business and that was done without the consent or knowledge of remaining members of the joint family. Defendant No.1 in collusion with his friends and relations was diverting the funds of the joint family and utilizing the funds for his own personal needs and failed to take appropriate care of the other members of the joint family. That all the plaint schedule properties have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4. The plaintiff attained majority during August, 2010 and came to know that defendant No.1 executed certain nominal and sham documents concerning joint family properties and they are prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff and other members of the joint family. Stating that those documents executed by defendant No.1 do not bind the plaintiff and other members of the joint family, the suit is laid seeking for partition of the plaint schedule properties into five parts and grant one share to the plaintiff.

8. The above referred contents of the plaint would at once indicate that while the joint family consists of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 alone, it is totally devoid of any averment as to who defendant Nos.5 to 18 are. While the plaint speaks about defendant No.1 executing sham and nominal documents alienating the plaint schedule properties no particular date, time or the nature of the document is indicated. Why defendant Nos.5 to 18 are added cannot be seen from the plaint at all. It seems that during pendency of the suit the plaintiff did not choose to prosecute the suit as against defendant Nos.8 and 9 and got the suit dismissed as not pressed as against those two of them.

9. Trial in the suit commenced and it was coming up for the evidence on behalf of defendant No.5