THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3974 & 3749 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two civil revision petitions arise out of the common order dated 16.07.2010 in I.A.No.318 of 2009 and I.A.No.145 of 2009 in R.C.No.558 of 2007, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the counter filed in the RC and under Rule 7(5) of the A.P. Rent Control Rules for receiving the Will and seeking permission to file the Will dated 22.12.2003, were dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent in both the revisions. Perused the record. 3. The respondents herein filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner from the schedule premises on the ground of willful default in payment of rents and also denial of title of the landlords. The petitioner herein filed a counter contesting the petition. During enquiry, the 2nd respondent herein was examined as PW.1 and the matter was coming up for his cross-examination. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed the above two applications, one for amendment of the counter filed by her and the other for permission to file the Will dated 22.12.2003 said to have been executed by her grandmother Susheelamma in favour of the petitioner herein. The respondents herein filed counter opposing the said applications. By the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller dismissed both the applications. 4. According to the petitioner, she is the absolute owner of the entire property, including the petition schedule premises. Claiming title in herself, the petitioner herein denied the title of the respondents. Even in the counter filed in the main R.C., the petitioner herein sought to amend the counter by pleading that her grandmother Susheelamma executed a Will dated 22.12.2003, bequeathing the schedule property in her favour. According to the petitioner, the said document was mixed up with other papers and only recently when searching the papers she came to know about the existence of the Will. The respondents contend that the said Will is a fabricated document brought into existence subsequent to commencement of enquiry. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has not referred to the existence of any such Will either in the counter filed in the R.C. or during exchange of notices prior to filing the R.C. Though the petitioner has chosen to deny the title of the respondents and also setup title in herself, the source of the said title has not been disclosed in the counter filed in the R.C. If really any such Will executed by her grandmother was in existence as on the date of filing the counter in the R.C., there is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioner has not chosen to refer the same in her counter. The plea of the petitioner that the Will got mixed up with some old papers and it was traced recently and, therefore, she could not file it earlier, cannot, for a moment, be countenanced. At any rate, even if the said document was not readily available to be filed into Court, there is no reason why even the existence of such a document which, according to the petitioner, is the source of her title, is not referred to in the counter filed in the R.C. It is highly improbable and hard to believe that the petitioner would have failed to make a mention about the Will in the original counter filed in the R.C. if really such a document was in existence and, especially when according to the petitioner, the said document was the basis of her claim of title. The proposed amendment would certainly introduce a new case altogether and would change the complexion of the case, resulting in prejudice to the other side. The petitioner herein has not chosen to file the Will along with the application and the respondents filed a memo on 17.09.2009 before the Court seeking direction to the petitioner herein to furnish a copy of the said Will and the petitioner herein opposed the said memo by filing objections, inter alia, contending that it is for the petitioner to file the Will at the appropriate stage. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner and others alleging offences under Sections 120B, 420, 423, 425, 464, 468, 471 and 506 IPC, and the said complaint was referred by the learned III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and report; and based on the same, S.R.Nagar police have registered FIR in Crime No.420 of 2010, and during the course of investigation of the same, the Will now propounded by the petitioner was sent to the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and opinion, and report was received to the effect that the Will is not genuine. A copy of the said FIR and the report of the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory are also filed by the respondents as material papers along with the petition filed for vacating the stay in CMP No.5282 of 2011. 6. Be that as it may, the very conduct of the petitioner in not making any reference to the existence of the said Will in the original counter filed and, there being absolutely no explanation whatsoever in that regard and the plea put forward to cover up the delay, being totally unacceptable, the learned Rent Controller, in due exercise of discretion, rightly dismissed both the applications. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY 01st November, 2011 KSM