THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY

CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.794 of 2025

ORDER

Heard Mr. Vijay B. Paropkari, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2. The present is a Civil Revision Petition which has filed been by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 28.01.2025, in I.A.No.175 of 2024 in O.S.No.161 of 2005, passed by the XIII Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. Vide the impugned order; the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The said Order VI Rule 17 petition has been dismissed by the Trial Court primarily relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of

Firoz Uddin and Others vs. Anwar Uddin¹

4. From the pleadings what is clearly culled out is that, here is a Suit which was filed in the year 2005 and the evidence of

1 2023 SCC OnLine All 3005 : (2023) 159 ALR 553

the parties stood closed as early as in the year 2023. It is at the fag end of the trial that the Order VI Rule 17 petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for amendment of the plaint. The amendment precisely sought for is to show the boundaries of the suit schedule properties.

5. Having considered the submissions and also the amendment that has been sought for, this Court is of the firm view that since it is only a Suit for partition from the defendants, referring to the boundaries of the suit schedule properties could be inconsequential at this stage when it has reached its fag end and whether the petitioner is entitled for partition in the suit schedule properties or not is still to be decided. The aspect of identification of the boundaries would or may occur in the event if the Suit is decreed in favour of the petitioner and the decree is sent in for execution. This Court sees no reason why the petitioner would not be having the liberty to take appropriate recourse available under law for the said purpose at that stage, if at all, if it is required. The right of the petitioner to that extent stands reserved.

6. In view of the same, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition accordingly stands dismissed.

7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

_____________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 20.06.2025 GSD