SEO 

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/defendant No.2 and respondent No.1/plaintiff, party-in-
person. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not choose to appear. Perused
the grounds of revision and the impugned order of the lower Court
dated 07.11.2017 in allowing the review application in I.A.No.1037
of 2017 reviewing the order in I.A.No.305 of 2016 in the pending
suit O.S.No.85 of 2011 filed for partition.
3. The grounds of the revision are that the impugned order of
the Court below in allowing the review application instead of
dismissal is unsustainable, contrary to law and in ignorance of the
scope of the nature of the suit for partition between co-sharers,
where even the defendants can ask for amendment of the
pleadings of the plaintiff including in schedule, to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings and had it been properly considered,
the review petition should have been dismissed for the order in
I.A.No.305 of 2016 sought for review no way requires review in
inclusion of the item of the property in the plaint schedule that is
raised to include in the written statement and thereby, sought for
setting aside the order of the lower Court.

Source: AP HC judgements

News Reporter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: