IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1350 of 2010 Between: Kilaparthi Ramamurthy & 3 others … Petitioners And: Gorela Samelamma & 4 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1350 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 16.11.2009 in IA No.580 of 2009 in OS No.28 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bobbili, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioners herein for receiving additional written statement, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein are the defendants. The respondents herein filed a suit against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the respondents-plaintiffs. The petitioners herein filed written statement contesting the suit. The trial of the suit commenced and the affidavit by the plaintiffs in lieu of chief examination was filed and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. At that stage, the defendants filed IA No.580 of 2009 seeking permission to file additional written statement. The respondents herein filed counter, opposing the said application. After hearing both sides, the learned Senior Civil Judge, dismissed IA No.580 of 2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 4. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs’ father Appalaswamy and first defendant’s father Poli Naidu, are the natural brothers and the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs’ father and first defendant’s father and the plaintiffs are entitled for half a share therein by virtue of registered Will executed by the plaintiffs’ father Appalaswamy on 06.06.1997. The first defendant filed written statement contending that the suit properties are the self acquired property of the first defendant’s father Poli Naidu and the plaintiffs’ father Appalaswamy never had any properties and the alleged Will dated 06.06.1997 is fabricated. Now the first defendant intends to file additional written statement to the effect that about one week prior to filing of the application, he came to know that the plaintiffs’ father executed a Will in favour of first defendant’s father and the said Will was in the custody of one Gandi Venkateswarlu of Lingalavalasa village and he secured the same from him and he may be permitted to amend the written statement accordingly. In the counter filed by the plaintiffs therein, it was stated that the alleged will is fabricated one and it did not see the light of the day at any time. In the original written statement, first defendant specifically pleaded that his father acquired the suit properties with his hard earnings and the plaintiffs’ father never worked at any time and never earned any properties. It was further contended in the written statement that out of love and affection, first defendant’s father purchased some properties in the name of the plaintiffs’ father, but the suit properties are the self acquired properties of first defendant’s father and there were no ancestral properties inherited by the plaintiffs’ father and first defendant’s father and they never lived together and the plaintiffs’ father had no right or share in the suit properties. By way of additional written statement, the defendants seek to introduce a new plea altogether to the effect that the plaintiffs’ father Appalaswamy executed a Will dated 09.03.1992 in favour of first defendant. In fact, the date of the said Will is not mentioned in the petition or affidavit filed in support thereof. It is also not disclosed as to who is the said Gandi Venkateswarlu and why and under what circumstances, the Will came to be kept with him. It is also not stated as to why the said Will was lying with Gandi Venkateswarlu all these years i.e., nearly 17 years, without seeing the light of the day and even after filing of the suit in 2007. The plea sought to be raised by way of additional written statement to the effect that the plaintiffs’ father executed a Will in favour of first defendant is totally inconsistent with the original plea in the written statement that the plaintiffs’ father had no properties at all and the suit properties were the self acquired properties of the first defendant’s father alone. 5. In a decision in ‘Shaik Asha vs. Shaik Moulaali[1]’ this Court held that ‘additional pleadings inconsistent with previous pleadings cannot be permitted by the Court’. 6. In ‘M/s SKD Laboratories vs. Bank of India, Vijayawada[2]’, this Court held that ‘the Court cannot permit additional written statement, which is inconsistent with the original written statement’. 7. In view of the above decisions and in view of the fact that new plea is sought to be raised by the first defendant in the additional written statement, which is totally at variance and inconsistent with the original plea in the original written statement, the trial Court has rightly refused to receive the additional written statement. The impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 16.08.2010 bss [1] 2005 (5) ALT 15 [2] 1988 (1) ALT 657