IIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5861 OF 2009 Between: I.Kannaiah Reddy …Petitioner A n d M.Krishnaiah and other ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5861 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 20-10-2009 in I.A.No.462 of 2009 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission to amend the petition in ATC, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed A.T.C.No.2 of 2009 for declaration that he is the cultivating tenant of the first respondent. The first respondent filed counter contesting the ATC. ATC is pending. While the matter stood thus, the second respondent claiming to be a purchaser of the schedule land under registered agreement of sale dated 22.11.1981 executed by the first respondent filed a suit O.S.No.26 of 1984 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor and obtained a decree and the appeal filed by the first respondent in A.S.No.73 of 1995 was dismissed by the District Court, Chittoor and thereafter the second respondent filed E.P.No.61 of 2006 and he executed the decree. 4. It is stated that possession of the property was also delivered to the second respondent in E.A.No.151 of 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.462 of 2009 seeking to amend the petition by adding the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by the Court in favour of the second respondent is null and void. The learned Junior Civil Judge while dismissing the said application made certain observations as if the main ATC is not maintainable in view of the subsequent developments. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that insofar as it relates to dismissal of the application for amendment, the same does not call for any interference. But, however, the observations made by the learned Junior Civil Judge to the effect that ATC itself is not maintainable in view of delivery of possession in favour of the second respondent as per orders in E.A.No.151 of 2009 in E.P.No.61 of 2006, if allowed to remain would amount to pre-judging the issue when the main ATC is still pending. 6. Under those circumstances, the said observations to the effect that ATC is not maintainable are set aside and the learned Junior Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the main ATC on its own merits without in any way being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th June, 2011 Lrkm.