IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1162 & 1330 of 2010 Between: K.Agnes Santha Kumari ..... PETITIONER AND Sheeba Rani and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1162 & 1330 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein for partition. These two civil revision petitions are filed under Article-227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 04.12.2009 made in I.A.Nos.211/2007 and 212/2007 in O.S.635/2002 on the file of the V Addl.Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam under Or.32 Rule-3 and under Or.1 Rule-10 CPC to appoint and add the proposed parties/ Respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein as Defendants Nos.3 and 4 in the suit. The said applications are dismissed by the Court below. The said IAs were filed for impleading Respondents Nos.2 and 3 as Defendants Nos.3 and 4 in the suit on the ground that a will has been executed in favour of their father with limited interest and absolute interest in favour of the minor children. But the very same defendant has taken a plea that the said earlier will was cancelled and a fresh will was executed and basing on the said plea of the defendant, the I.As were dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said I.As were dismissed on the ground that in the written statement a plea was taken that the will dated 03.05.1994 was cancelled and therefore, there cannot be any need or requirement to add the beneficiaries of the said Will. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order was passed without taking into consideration of the plea taken in the additional written statement wherein it was stated that after executing first will dated 03.05.1994, the second Will dated 12.12.2005 was executed and even according to the second will, the right has been conferred on the proposed respondents. I am of the opinion that as the I.As were dismissed even before giving an opportunity of being heard to the respondent/plaintiff and as the additional written statement was not taken into consideration, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, both these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed remitting the matter to the Court below to consider and dispose of the said applications afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 11.03.2011 Dsr