THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1990 of 2010 BETWEEN: D.R. Garg S/o. Sri Sidda Ram, I.A.S. Occupation Government Service, R/o. 8.2.472/B1, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..PETITIONER And M. Bhargava Rao, S/o. Raghunada Rao, R/o. 1400, Andover Drive, Moundelein, Illinois 60060 USA, & presently residing at H.No.9-2-293/82/PN/204, Plot # 204, Road No.13, Prashanathnagar, Jubilee Hills PO, Hyderabad-500 033. ..RESPONDENT Counsel For The Petitioners: Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Neeraja Reddy Counsel For Respondents: Sri M. Papa Reddy & Smt. Manjari S. Ganu The Court made the following order. ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.218 of 2007 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the respondent for cancellation of agreement of sale dated 28.05.2005, for recovery of possession over the suit schedule property and for recovery of damages of occupation thereof. The respondent filed written statement denying the allegations. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2453 of 2009 under Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- towards damages/mesne profits from 1.04.2007 to 31.12.2008 and for a direction to the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- p.m. from 1.01.2009 to 30.06.2009 and to continue to pay the same in future till the vacant possession of the property is delivered to him. The respondent opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 27.04.2010. The same is challenged in this revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The admitted facts are that the petitioner delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 28.05.2005. The suit is filed for the relief of cancellation of that agreement, for recovery of possession of the property and for recovery of damages. Unless the relief of recovery of possession is granted in favour of the petitioner, the question of claiming damages earlier thereto does not arise. It is only in suits filed for recovery of possession from the tenants or licensees, such a facility would exist under Order 15 A of C.P.C. The trial Court rightly dismissed the I.A. The Civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however made clear that in the event of the suit being decreed, the trial Court shall consider the aspect of awarding damages also. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. 2nd August, 2010 Js.