ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

Assailing the correctness and legality of the order and decree, dated 05.12.2022 passed in Interlocutory Application No.212 of 2022 in Original Suit No.162 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that :

i) The petitioners herein are plaintiffs and respondents herein are defendants in O.S.162 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

ii) The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.162 of 2019 seeking partition of Plaint A and B schedule properties into six equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such 1/6^th share each to the plaintiffs and deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs and for grant of future profits relating to the plaint schedule property over 1/6^th share of each of the plaintiffs i.e., 1/3^rd share from the date of filing the suit till realization of possession with interest at 12% from the respective due dates. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.212 of 2022, under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, praying the Court to permit them to amend the plaint for effective adjudication of rights in relation to the schedule properties by adding Paragraph 6A and by including an additional property in the suit schedule along with consequential amendment of the prayer.

iii) In the said Interlocutory Application, the defendants filed counter denying the allegations contending that the petitioners, in collusion with other respondents, had filed the said application for impleading the same under the litigation of partition by showing the same as a joint family property. It was further contended that the petitioner had already filed her chief examination, the trial had commenced and at that stage filing such an application was only to drag the proceedings. It is also contended that respondent No.6 acquired the proposed amended property by way of a registered sale deed and that she is the absolute owner and having possession over the same and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Interlocutory Application.

iv) After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the interlocutory application was filed when the trial was pending for filing of the plaintiff’s chief affidavit and that allowing the petition would cause injustice to the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents filed counter contending that the petitioners have approached the Court with unclean hands. It is further contended that after filing the present suit for partition, respondent No.6 filed suit in O.S.No.287 of 2019 for injunction against the petitioners/plaintiffs and other respondents in respect of the property belonging to her, which is now sought to be included as an additional schedule in the present suit in O.S.No.162 of 2022. It is further contended that respondent No.6 acquired the same under a registered sale deed and after attaining majority, has been in possession of the said property since about 20 years. It is further stated that she obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds and has become the absolute owner and having possession over the proposed amendment schedule property. Since respondent No.6 filed suit in O.S.287 of 2019 after the filing of O.S.No.162 of 2019 by the petitioners herein and other respondents herein got filed the present application seeking to implead the same property in the partition suit. It is further contended that respondent No.6 had already filed her chief examination affidavit in O.S.No.287 of 2019 thereby commencing the trial and that the present petition thereafter came to light, which itself clearly shows th