THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 3555 of 2009 Dated: 28.09.2010 Between: P.Lakshmamma and another … Petitioners And P.Thippakka … Respondent THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 3555 of 2009 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 09.07.2009 in I.A.No.130 of 2008 in O.S.No.154 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur. The revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit. Respondent herein filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 4/9th share in the plaint schedule properties. The defendants/revision petitioners filed a written statement denying the plea of the plaintiff that she, along with the defendants had been in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and that she was entitled to 4/9th share. It was also contended that the suit schedule properties were the subject matter of the proceedings pending before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and therefore, the suit itself was not maintainable. While so, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.130 of 2008 with a prayer to auction the leasehold rights of the plaint schedule properties every year and deposit the amount in the Court till the disposal of the suit pleading that after filing the suit, it had become difficult for her to enjoy the plaint schedule properties jointly. Though the said application was opposed by the defendants, the Court below after hearing both the parties, by order dated 09.07.2009 allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the defendants. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Despite notice, the respondent did not choose to appear. As could be seen, it is specifically pleaded in the written statement that the suit schedule properties are not joint family properties. Hence, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the 4/9th share as claimed by her requires consideration in the main suit on appreciation of the evidence that may be adduced by both the parties. It is also relevant to note that order 39 Rule 10 of C.P.C., which provides for deposit of money in the Court, is attracted only where the subject matter of a suit is of money or some other capable of delivery and where any party admits that he holds such money or other things as a trustee for another party. Apparently, the said provision has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. The court below allowed I.A.No.130 of 2008 without application of mind to the purport of order 39 Rule 10 of C.P.C. At any rate, since the successful party is always entitled for mesne profits, the auction of leasehold rights of the suit schedule property is unwarranted at this stage. Accordingly, the order under revision is hereby set aside and I.A.No.130 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.09.2010 KLP