ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2019 in I.A. No.756 of 2017 in O.S.No.103 of 2010 on the file of the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

2. The plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the pleadings in the plaint. The suit filed for partition against the defendant for partition of the joint family properties. It is contended that there is another property in an extent of Ac.0.90 cents situated in R.S.No.573/4, Nunna, Vijayawada, wherein the petitioner’s husband was having 1/3rd undivided share. It is further stated that prior to filing of the partition suit during the lifetime of the petitioner’s husband, a partition was affected between her son and her husband and a partition list dated 14-08-1982 was executed amongst them. However the subject property of Ac.0.90 cents was not included in the said partition as the same was not divided between her husband and his brothers. And the said property was in joint possession of her late husband and his brothers. After the said partition in the year 1982, the plaintiff’s husband died intestate on 30.04.1990, leaving the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant as his legal heirs. It is stated by the petitioner that at the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs were not having the details of the subject property of Ac.0.90 cents. Therefore, the same was not included in the description of the property/s. Therefore sought amendment of the pleadings. It is stated that the 1st defendant to defeat the interests of the plaintiff has brought into existence a partition deed dated 07.11.2008. Wherein, the 1st defendant was allotted total extent of Ac0.30 cents without including the petitioner and her daughters, who are also entitled for share in the said properties. Thereafter, he had executed a relinquishment deed dated 28.11.2008, relinquishing his 1/4th share in favour his daughter by receiving consideration of Rs.1,69,000/-. Thereafter, it is stated that the National High Way Authorities have acquired Ac.0.27 cents out of Ac.0.30 cents of the said land. Since the petitioners are also entitled for their respective share in the property, they have issued notice to the competent authority not to disburse the amount. However, the petitioner/ defendant had managed to receive the compensation through cheques dated 14.07.2014 and 07.06.2014. It is contended by the respondent/plaintiff that the plaintiffs also have a share in the subject property. The respondent/ plaintiff thus prayed for amendment of the pleadings.

3. The learned Judge, allowed the application observing that the contentions of the petitioner/defendant that the provisions of Sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act, would not apply in as much as the husband of the respondent/plaintiff was, no more, as on the date of coming into force of Act 30 of 2005. And issues have to be gone into and decided in the main suit. Thus the learned Judge has allowed the application filed for amendment of the pleadings.

4. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the instant application filed for amendment of pleadings is barred by limitation in as much as the petitioner/defendant has received the amount granted towards compensation for acquisition of land on 14.07.2014 and 07.06.2014 and the application was filed on 01.09.2017. Therefore, the period of limitation for claiming any sums would reckon from the date of the cheque dated 14.07.2014. Therefore, as the instant application, filed beyond the period of three years is barred by limitation and further stated that the L.R. application in I.A. No.167 of 2016, to bring on record the Legal Representatives of 2nd plaintiff, was pending as on the date of filing of the instant application, I.A. No.756 of 2017. However, the instant application was allowed without impleading th