ORDER :

K.Manmadha Rao, J.

As the issue involved in all these civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr.Sivalenka Ramachandra Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.V.G.M.Krishna Rao, Sri P.Prabhakar Rao and Sri Venkata Durga Rao.A., learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

3. Since the facts in all the civil revision petitions are similar and identical, therefore CRP No.1183 of 2019 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

4. The facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner by name Vedala Ramanujacharyulu died intestate on 10.10.1967. During his lifetime, his father bequeathed a Will on 25.07.1948 and a Gift deed dated 06.06.1953. His mother by name Vedala Seshamma died on 26.12.2009. His step mother Vedala Andallamma executed a Will dated 20.04.1966 during her lifetime and later died on 26.05.1967. Thus the properties of his father, mother and step mother devolved upon him as per the said documents. It is further stated that the plaint schedule property is part and parcel of the above said properties. It is stated that one of the sisters of the petitioner by name Nanduri Vijaya Lakshmi in collusion with other sisters got filed a suit in O.S.No.89 of 2010 on the file of the trial Court, for partition with false documents and with false averments. Thus, his sisters sold some properties belong to the petitioner with false recitals, false averments and false documents. Then the petitioner got filed suits against his sisters vide O.S No.147 of 2012, O.S No.149 of 2012, O.S No.150 of 2012, O.S No.148 of 2012, O.S No.191 of 2012 and O.S No.32 of 2012 before the trial Court. Prior to filing of the suits, he tried to ascertain the originals of Will dated 25.07.1948 bequeathed by his father, gift deed dated 06.06.1953 executed by his father and Will dated 20.04.1966 bequeathed by his step mother. But due to his best efforts to ascertain the above said documents in originals they were not traced out and also he did not mention about the above documents in his plaint by mistake. Hence the present impugned I.A has been filed before the trial Court and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the revision petition came to be filed.

5. The counter affidavits are filed in all these matters, for convenience, the averments in counter in C.R.P.No.1183 of 2019 are stated as under:

In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the respondents have denied all the averments made in the petition and contended that the proposed amendment in plaint is for giving the explanation of why he could not file those original documents of Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 before the Court already they were marked. As afterthought after filing of his chief examination the petitioner/plaintiff to an intention for fill-up lacuna in his pleadings and also in his evidence he filed this petition for seeking amendment of his plaint. The proposed amendment averments are all not true and correct and concocted for the purpose in support of his pleadings. Hence, prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

6. The 2nd respondent also filed counter in the said CRP while reiterating the averments made in the counter filed by the 1st respondent, contended that the proposed amendments sought to the plaint are facts alleging that he has knowledge about the same prior to filing of the suit in OS No.148 of 2012 but he filed written statement in OS No.89 of 2010 which was filed by the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed suits in O.S