IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5481 OF 2007 Between: Chittapragada Subbalakshmi …Petitioner A n d Nadupalli Tulasi Devi and three others and three others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5481 OF 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 22-10-2007 in I.A.No.799 of 2007 in O.S.No.56 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein (D-2), seeking a direction to the second respondent (D-1) to deposit her share of profits at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per year for the year 2006 into Court, pending disposal of the main suit, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed a suit for partition against petitioner (D-2) and respondents 2 to 4 (D-1, 3 and 4) and for other reliefs. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit. Earlier, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.398 of 2005 under Order XL Rule 1 CPC for appointment of receiver to take possession of the schedule properties and to auction the leasehold rights every year and deposit the sale proceeds into Court. By order dated 03-10-2005, the said petition was disposed of rejecting the plea for appointment of receiver but, however, directing D-1 to deposit Rs.10,000/- per year before 10th of January every year into Court until further orders. Subsequently, the petitioner/D-2 also filed I.A.No.799 of 2007 for similar relief under Section 151 CPC. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned order observing in case that the petitioner succeeds in the main suit, she can claim her share of profits at a later stage. 4. It is stated that recording of evidence of both sides has since been completed and the matter has reached the stage of arguments before the trial Court. When that is so, it is considered neither just nor proper to go into the merits of the matter and decide upon the respective contentions of the parties in the present proceedings, as the matter has reached the fag end of trial before the trial Court. The respective claims of the parties including that of the petitioner/ D-2 would certainly fall for adjudication before the trial Court in the final orders that may be passed in the suit. 5. In the circumstances, it is held that no further orders need be passed in the civil revision petition on merits, except directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit at an early date. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th March, 2011 Lrkm