OMMI SETTI Vs. HEERA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides, and at their request, the main revision petition itself is taken up for disposal.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is the landlord, seeks to assail the order dated 02 -02 -2006 in I.A. No. 9 of 2005 in R.C.C. No. 5 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge , Anakapalle, wherein the respondent herein was permitted to file an additional counter in the main case.

(3.) ON considering the submission and also on perusal of the material, it is seen that both the suit as well as the eviction case are filed in 1997 and the same were being contested by the respondent, However, there is no reason forthcoming on behalf of the respondent in support of the present application as to why he could not possibly take a specific plea of spending Rs. 30,000/ - towards repairs in spite of the fact that they have taken such a plea in the written statement of the civil suit filed for recovery of arrears of rent. In view of the same, I do not find any justification in entertaining the very application, especially, in the absence of any proper reason forthcoming. Simultaneously, in fact as per this case is concerned, it would certainly amount to introduction of a new case and the Court below should not entertain a new case.