IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE : ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5 7 4 1 OF 2009. Between: Prahlad Rai Goyal s/o Surajmal Goyal, Aged about 71 years, 0cc. Nil R/oFlat No. 502, Vansh Towers, Maheshnagar Colony, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. … Revision Petitioner V/s. Dr. Vijendra Desai, s/o Janardhan Rao Desai, R/o USA Represented by his GPA Dr.B. Gopalchary, s/o late B.Vardha Chary, Aged about 71 years, Occ. Pensioner, r/o. H.No. 23-6-67, Shalibanda, Hyderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the Revision Petitioner: M/s Sharad Sanghi & Associates Counsel for the Respondent : None Appeared THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5 7 4 1 OF 2009 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 26-6-2009 passed in I.A.No.1220 of 2008 in OS.No. 744 of 2005 by the I-Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the petition filed under Order-15-A I1) & (2) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to struck-off the defence of the defendant in the suit for non-compliance of the order dated 22-6- 2007 passed in I.A.No. 857 of 2007, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The facts of the case are that the revision petitioner is the respondent in the above Interlocutory application and defendant in the main suit. The suit has been filed for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits. The suit was filed by Dr.B.Gopalachari on behalf of respondent-landlord in his capacity as the General Power of Attorney Holder of Dr.Vijendra Desai. All through the proceedings, the address of Dr.Vijendra Desai has not been given at any point of time. The contention of the petitioner-defendant all through that Dr.Vijendra Desai is no more and that the GPA is not subsisting and hence the very suit as has been filed by Dr.B.Gopalachari in the capacity of Power of Attorney is not maintainable. During the pendency of the case, I.A.No.857 of 2007 was filed for deposit of rents. The trial court allowed the application directing the revision petitioner to pay all the alleged arrears and the amounts accrued during the pendency of the present case. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner filed CRP.No.3051 of 2007 on 26-6-2007. During the course of enquiry in CPR.No.3051 of 2007, he handed over the keys and vacated the premises to the respondent herein. While dismissing the main CRP.No.3051 of 2007, this court observed that the grievance of the respondent has already been met without prejudice to the rights in the main suit. While things stood thus, I.A.No.1854 of 2007 was filed by the respondent herein for striking off the defence for not complying the orders passed and the said application was got dismissed by the plaintiff by representing to the court that the same has become infructuous. Thus, the order in I.A.No. 1854 of 2007 have become final. Further he filed I.A.No.163 of 2008 before the very same court in I.A.No.1854 of 2007 under Order XIX Rule 2 of CPC seeking to afford him a chance to cross-examine PW.1 on his affidavit in I.A.No.1854 of 2007. While dismissing I.A.No. 163 of 2008, the trial court observed that PW.1 can always be cross-examined in the main suit itself. The trial in the main suit started by filing chief examination affidavit of PW.1 on 21-4-2008 and thereafter PW.1 did not turn to face cross-examination inspite of the fact that the counsel for defendant was ready to cross-examine PW.1. The impugned application in I.A.No. 1220 of 2008 has been preferred by the respondent-plaintiff for striking off the defence for non- compliance of the orders in I.A.No. 857 of 2007 and that the trial court has allowed the said I.A. and thereby shutting down the defence of the petitioner and hence the present revision. 3. Admittedly, the revision petitioner (respondent- defendant) was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- towards arrears of rent and future rents at Rs.8,500/- per month till disposal of the suit vide orders dated 22-6-2007. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioner filed CRP.No.3051 of 2007. 4. The learned Judge of this Court disposed of CRP.No.3051 of 2007 while recording the submission of the counsel in the court that his client is not in a position to pay the rents, but he is prepared to give the vacant possession of the rented property to the respondent-landlord and he handed over the keys of the shop to the counsel for the respondent in the open court. The learned counsel for respondent has accepted the keys without prejudice to his rights in the suit. Under the above circumstances, the order passed in I.A.No.857 of 2007 has become final and the order of depositing arrears of rent of Rs.2,25,000/- is considered. 5. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower court and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 04-12-2009. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5 7 4 1 OF 2009 Circulation Entry No. 81 Date: 04-12-2009 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43.