THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.6022 of 2009 Date:23.12.2010 Between: Anipeddi Venkata Durga Prasad. ……..Petitioner. And Muthineni nageswar Rao and others. ………Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.6022 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This revision is directed against the order dated 4.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.234 of 2009 in I.P.No.5 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Suthupalli, Khammam District. The petitioner herein filed Insolvency Petition. The 1st respondent seems to have filed E.P No.43 of 2003 seeking for the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner filed I.A.No.234 of 2009 praying to receive certified copy of the Will, dated 25.7.1998, said to have been executed by his father in favour of his sister Kusuma Kumari. It is also his case that under the said Will, his father bequeathed his self acquired property to his sister-Kusuma Kumari due to differences with his father as he married by one lady belonging to some other caste. The 1st respondent filed a counter inter alia contending that the petition was not maintainable and that the petitioner did not disclose about the existence of the said Will in his Insolvency Petition or at any point of time. The lower Court, observing that the petitioner did not whisper about this document in I.P and that he is not the beneficiary under the said document and the petitioner failed to explain how the document is relevant and necessary in the E.P proceedings, dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Court ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner and that the petitioner had filed the said Will in E.P No.43 of 2003 and that the said document is necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the insolvency petition. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any merits in the revision petition? Admittedly, the petitioner did not whisper about this document in his pleadings in I.P.No.5 of 2003. Similarly, the petitioner is not the beneficiary under the said Will. Thus it appears that the observation of the lower Court that the petitioner failed to explain how the document is relevant and necessary appears to be correct. Hence no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:23.12.2010 mrb