ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2, aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2017 in I.A.No.1037 of 2017 in I.A.No.305 of 2016 in O.S.No.85 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam District. 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. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 in support of the revision contentions placed reliance upon the expression of the Single Judge of this Court in Prathipati Murlidhararao @ Nehru v. Prathipati Venkataratnam Gandhi and others, 2016(6) ALD 501 and the expression of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Solavaiammal W/o Ettiappa Goundar v. Ezhumalai Goundar., 2011(5) LW 859 5. The thumb rule in a suit for partition that all the necessary parties are to be impleaded and all the properties liable for partition are to be included, can no way be in dispute. Even Order I Rules 9 and 13 C.P.C. from the combined reading clearly speak that, though any objection regarding non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties has to be taken at or before settlement of issues and otherwise it would be deemed waived same, however, is not a bar for non-taking of the plea regarding non-joinder of necessary party since same is fatal to the very maintainability of the suit. Leave about Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. enables Court to implead any necessary or proper party to a suit at any stage of the proceedings and which expression of suit includes even appeal or other proceeding including from the very wording of Section 141 C.P.C, however, that analogy of inclusion or deletion of parties or transposition of parties within the power of the Court under Order I Rule 10 or under Order XXII Rule 10 or under Sections 51 or 146 C.P.C. is not available for amendment of the pleadings of the parties, for the amendment of the pleadings are only governed by Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The very wording of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. enables the own pleadings to amend or alter and not of opposite parties more particularly from the wording the Court may allow either party. his pleadings. For more clarity same is reproduced herein:- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 6. Leave about the due diligence clause, after commencement of trial for amendment of pleadings, it must be shown the amendment is necessary and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment is and cannot as per the settled law to the prejudice of the opposite party or party not before the Court without adding that party and without opportunity that too. 7. 7. Once such is the scope of law, coming to decide the applicability or not of the two expressions placed reliance to the case on hand; from the settled law, in a partition suit, the defendants, who are entitled to share either as co-owners or as co-sharers as the case may be are at par in status with plaintiff is different from allowing the opposite party to intrude into and to seek there from amendment of the pleading of that opposite party, that too, when Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. from its very wording supra has been permitting to do so and further, it is not a case to invoke Section 151 C.P.C. of exercise of inherent power for such a recourse when it cannot be said same is to prevent any abuse of process or to subserve the ends of justice, more particularly, when the age old practice in vogue, in such partition suits, where the defendant wants to contest that certain properties, which are liable for partition not included, the defendant is entitled by filing a written statement schedule in asking to consider those properties also for partition. It is so that ultimately in passing a preliminary decree for partition of the properties, if at all those are also liable for partition, provided the persons in whose name that property stands must be added as party to the suit with opportunity to contest and then only to add as part of the preliminary decree schedule by describing the written statement schedule also if at all liable for partition. Once that is the effective and proper course available, leave about any counter claim can be made by defendants. Such counter claim is even claimed not required for inclusion of those parties in the suit for partition based on joint possession once it is a fixed court fee, irrespective of the extent and value of the properties involved, but for required where the suit for partition sought is not based on joint possession and requires payment of advoleram court fee for the defendant to include any properties he has to pay court fee thereon with a counter claim. 8. By keeping these principles in mind, the settled law and the age old and settled practice in vogue, it is not possible to say at the instance of the defendant from his seeking amendment of the plaint schedule for inclusion. 8. By keeping these principles in mind, the settled law and the age old and settled practice in vogue, it is not possible to say at the instance of the defendant from his seeking amendment of the plaint schedule for inclusion. Thereby, the conclusion arrived in Prathipati Murlidhararao @ Nehru (supra) is confined to its own facts and not a precedent to follow that too when the very wording of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. supra not considered to say therefrom as hit by sub-silentio. Needless to discuss on the same further, even coming to the Division Bench expression of the Madras High Court, it was in answering a reference from the conflicting expressions of the two single Judges of that Court, it was observed therein stating each case depends on own facts. What the learned Single Judge of this Court placed reliance of the expression of the Apex Court in S.Satnam Singh and others v. Surender Kaur ( 2009(2) SCC 562 ) concerned even, it was a case, where, as per the settled law in a contest raised by the defendant in his written statement by inclusion of some more properties, that were not included in the plaint schedule by the plaintiff, these were ordered to be included in the preliminary decree schedule since also liable for partition. Once that is the proper recourse available and that expression is also reiterates the practice in vogue, there is nothing in law to permit any party to amend the pleadings of the opposite party contrary to the very wording of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. 9. Having regard to the above, the revision is disposed of for there is nothing to interfere in the revision against the review order of the trial Court, but for, clarifying that the defendant if the suit is based on joint possession by payment of fixed court fee can show in the written statement schedule in seeking for inclusion of the property also as part of the properties liable for partition in the preliminary decree, that too by adding of the son of the plaintiff in whose name that property stands as co-plaintiff or co- defendant by the Court. If the suit is not based on joint possession and not by payment of fixed court fee, to claim in the written statement shall be as a counter claim and by payment of court fee thereon, leave about power of the Court to insist for payment of any deficit court fee is available under Sections 11 and 15 of the A.P. Court Fees Act till pronouncement of judgment for the reason the Court till then no way functus officio. 10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.