ORDER 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 of2005 in R.C.C.No.50f 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. The few facts, which are necessary for disposal of this petition, are that the eviction case has been filed by the petitioner herein inter alia on the ground of wilful default and bona fide requirement, and the same has been contested by the respondent on various grounds. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed another suit in O.S.No.147 of 1997 for recovery of arrears which has also been contested by the respondents. In both the cases, the respondent filed counters and contesting the matters. However, it appears that the plea which has been taken in the additional counter that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was spent towards repairs was not taken in the eviction proceedings. The respondent also admitted that he did not take any plea of spending Rs.30,000/- in the counter of the eviction case. The said application has been allowed by the Court below. 4. 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. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Case is allowed and the order impugned in I.A.No.9 of 2005 in R.C.C.No.Sof1997 stands dismissed. No costs.