IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.R.P.No.3005 of 2011 Dated:06-09-2011 Between: M/S Proddatur Oils Private Limited and others. ….Appellants. And S.Murali and others. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.R.P.No.3005 of 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This revision is directed against the Orders passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.1650 of 2011 in I.A.No.3304 of 2010 in O.S.No.196 of 2010 on 20.06.2011. The parties in the appeal are being referred to as mentioned in the petition before the lower Court. The appellants herein have filed I.A.No.1650 of 2011 for receiving of additional counter in I.A.No.3304 of 2010 in O.S.No.196 of 2010 on the ground that they have filed counter on the basis of mere pleadings supplied to them and they could not meet several points raised during the course of arguments for want of material papers. The respondents have opposed the same and filed counter and contending that they have filed the I.A.No.3304 of 2010 in the month of December, 2010 and obtained status quo order. Immediately a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was preferred by the respondents therein before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the Status quo Order passed in the said suit and the said C.M.A.No.1052 of 2010 was disposed of by this Court with a direction to dispose of the I.A.No.3304 of 2010 expeditiously within one week. The appellants herein already filed their counter in the said I.A.3304 of 2010 and arguments were heard, at that stage, they come forward with the present application for receiving of the additional counter. The allegation that the material papers were not served on them is not correct and they have served with the material papers in the month of December, 2010 itself. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to file additional counter at that stage. Taking into consideration of the respective pleadings of both the parties, the lower Court held that the petitioners have not made any representation with regard to non receiving of the copies of the documents filed along with the I.A.No.3304 of 2010 and it is always open for the defendants’ counsel to argue the legal aspects even without pleading. The petitioners did not file any new pleadings or documents subsequent to filing of the above I.A. Hence, there is absolutely no necessity to receive any additional counter at this stage and thereby dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present revision is filed. The contention of the revision petitioners’ counsel is that by the time they have filed counter, the documents filed along with I.A.No.3304 of 2010 were not supplied to them and after going through the said documents, it has become necessary for filing additional counter to rebut the averments made in the said documents. The respondents’ counsel on the other hand has pleaded that the documents filed along with I.A.No.3304 of 2010 were supplied to them immediately after filing of the same and there is no need to file any additional counter for the documents filed by them in the said I.A. As rightly contended by the respondents’ counsel even though the documents were not served on the petitioners at the time of filing of the I.A.No.3304 of 2010 and served subsequent to filing of their counter, there is no need to file any additional counter on receipt of the said documents. The counter should be based on the pleadings made in the petition in I.A.No.3304 of 2010. Moreover, the petitioners filed the said petition after hearing the arguments of both sides in I.A.No.3304 of 2010, therefore, the petition for receiving additional counter at this stage is not maintainable. As such, the lower Court has rightly dismissed the said petition. The said finding does not warrant any interference by this Court as there is no material irregularity or illegality committed by the lower Court in dismissing the said application. Hence the revision fails. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:06-09 -2011 Ksp