HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3937 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioners herein, who are defendants 16 to 18 in the mortgage suit filed by the first respondent for passing a preliminary decree for a sum of Rs.10,75,296/-, filed I.A.1393 of 2009 in O.S.38 of 2003 pending on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada, seeking to frame an additional issue as to whether the alleged unregistered Will deed dated 10.01.2008 said to have been executed by Dharmayya, husband of the 16th petitioner in favour of defendants 13, 14 and 15 is true or valid and whether D13 is validly married late Dharmayya and defendants 13, 14 and 16 are entitled to succeed him. On dismissal of the above said I.A., petitioners filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the correctness of the same. It is not in dispute that a suit for partition in O.S.No.512 of 1993 was tried between the same parties (by the heirs of Dharmaiah) and the Will was also subject matter of dispute in the said suit, where I.A.19 of 2007 was filed for passing a final decree, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. In the present suit, i.e. O.S.38 of 2003 for recovery of mortgage debt, the first respondent/plaintiff pleaded that late Mummidi Nageswara Rao executed a registered Will bequeathing his properties to respondents 11 and 12 under the Will deed dated 07.07.2001. Thus, they are liable for the suit debt. Similarly, Mummidi Dharmayya executed a Will dated 10.0.2006 bequeathing the properties to defendants 13 to 15. Thus, they are the legal representatives of late Dharmayya and they are entitled for the suit debt. Admittedly, defendants 13 to 15 have not filed any petition to frame additional issue to the effect that whether the Will executed in their favour dated 10.01.2006 is valid or not, and they are not disputing about their liability of the mortgage debt pleaded by the plaintiff. In view of the same, petitioner filed the impugned I.A. to frame additional issue with regard to correctness of un-registered Will deed dated 10.01.2006 executed in favour of defendants 13, 14 and 15, cannot be subject matter of the dispute in the present suit, unless denied by defendants 13 to 15. Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the lower Court dismissing I.A.1393 of 2009 in O.S.38 of 2003, do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 11th September 2009 Note: Issue C.C.within one week. B/o.Rns