ORDER
R.M. Bapat, J.
1. The petitioner herein was the original defendant. The respondent herein was the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No. 101/80 instituted by him which was pending on the file of the District Munsif, Gudur, Nellore district. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for delivery of possession. On evidence, the learned Judge decreed the suit against the plaintiff, (sin. defendent) Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant filed an appeal before the Sub-Court, Gudur by filing A.S. No. 8/83. On hearing the matter on merit, the learned Sub-Judge remanded the matter to the Court of District Munsif directing him to frame an additional issue of title wherein the plaintiff was given an opportunity to lead the evidence on the point of title in respect of the suit schedule property. Thereupon, the petitioner herein who was the defendant in O.S.No. 101/80 filed I.A. No. 368/96 requesting the Court to allow him to amend the written statement as the scope of the suit filed by the plaintiff – respondent herein, is enlarged by the order of the Sub-Judge. The said I.A. No. 368/96 for filing additional written statement was rejected. Hence, the petitioner/defendant has filed the present Revision Petition.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the second respondent.
3. It is not in dispute that the Sub-Judge, Gudur, while remanding the matter to the District Munsif, Gudur, directed to frame additional issue of title and take evidence. It means that though there was no relief of declaration of title sought by the plaintiff in his original suit, the plaintiff was given an opportunity to lead the evidence on the point of the title to the suit schedule property of which he is claiming the possession in the suit. When the plaintiff is given an opportunity to lead the evidence on the point of title in respect of the suit schedule property, it goes without saying that the defendant gets a right to file the additional written statement denying the title of the plaintiff. The District Munsif, under these circumstances, ought to have allowed the I.A. No. 368/96 wherein the defendant had made prayer for filing additional written statement.
4. Considering the above legal aspect, this Court allows the Revision Petition by allowing the defendant /petitioner to amend his written statement. In effect, I.A. No. 368/96 stands allowed. The suit should be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order by the said Court.
No order as to costs.