HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3571 of 2009 Date : 07.08.2009 Between : Vangeti Anuradha. …..Petitioner And M/s.Ganapathi Industries, Madikonda, rep. by its Managing Partner G.V.P.Chakaravarthy & 5 others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3571 of 2009 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, is filed, aggrieved by the order of the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal, dated 5th of August 2008, passed in I.A.No.598 of 2008 in O.S.No.67 of 2007. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,12,000/- from respondents 1 to 3. On the ground that some of the properties owned by respondents 1 to 3 are in possession of respondents 5 and 6, they were impleaded as party- respondents. Respondents 5 and 6 are the lessees of the immovable properties of respondents 1 to 3. To secure the suit amount, the petitioner has already filed an application seeking attachment before judgment of properties, which are in possession of respondents 5 and 6, and the said interlocutory application is already allowed in I.A.No.2016 of 2007. In the subsequent application in I.A.No.598 of 2008, filed under Section 151 of CPC, the petitioner has sought for directions against respondents 5 and 6 to deposit the monthly rent of Rs.26,000/- from the month of April 2008, to the credit of the suit, in view of the claim made by the petitioner in the suit. The Court below has rejected the said application by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. 3. In this revision petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that if the rent amount is not deposited to the credit of the suit, petitioner would be deprived of suit claim in the event of his success in the suit. It is to be noticed that the properties, which are in possession of respondents 5 and 6, are already attached vide orders in the earlier application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.2016 of 2007. Even before adjudication of the suit claim, merely on the ground that respondents 5 and 6 are lessees of respondents 1 to 3/defendants, the petitioner cannot seek directions for depositing the monthly rents at this stage. In view of the reasons recorded by the Court below, I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by it, warranting interference in this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the Revision is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th August 2009 ajr