THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.145 OF 2009 DATED: 28-01-2011 Between: T.Amba Bai & 5 others. .... PETITIONERS And Laxminarayana Gupta & 5 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 27-11-2008, in I.A.No.761 of 2008 in O.S.No.7163 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners-defendants for recasting of the issues, was dismissed. 2. Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘Interlocutory’ for fixing an early date of hearing, with the consent of both the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 4. Respondents filed suit in O.S.No.7163 of 2004 against the petitioners for declaration of title; for removal of the encroachments; recovery of possession in respect of the plaint schedule property and for mandatory injunction. Petitioners-defendants filed a written statement contesting the suit. Additional issues were also settled. Subsequently, petitioners-defendants filed I.A.No.938 of 2008 for amendment of the written statement and the same was allowed. Thereupon, plaintiffs filed a rejoinder based on the additional pleadings contained in the amended written statement and the rejoinder. The trial Court framed two additional issues as under: 1. Whether the defendants perfected their title by adverse possession over the suit property? 2. Whether the defendants purchased the site and constructed their building in accordance with the sanctioned plan?. 5. Regarding Additional Issue No.1, petitioners- defendants have no grievance. However, petitioners seek deletion of additional issue No.2 and for that purpose, they filed I.A.No.761 of 2008. Respondents-plaintiffs filed counter opposing the same and contending that additional issue No.2 does arise on the basis of additional pleadings. 6. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. The suit is for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction. The trial of the suit is stated to be in progress. The disputed additional issue No.2 is to the effect whether the defendants purchased the site and constructed their buildings in accordance with the sanctioned plan. According to the plaintiff, defendants encroached upon his site and made illegal construction. Defendants denied the same and contend that they purchased the disputed site and constructed the house thereon. 8. In view of the assertion of a material fact by the plaintiff and denial of the same by the defendants, the issue, in fact, has arisen as to whether the defendants purchased the site and constructed the house in accordance with the sanctioned plan. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that framing of the issue relating to construction of the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan is not warranted by the pleadings. 10. According to the plaintiff, defendants made illegal construction and when the defendants are asserting that they have made construction in a lawful manner and after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities, it is necessary for the trial Court to consider whether the disputed construction is an illegal construction or a lawful construction. In that context, the second additional issue, as framed by the trial Court, is certainly relevant. The impugned order, dismissing the application seeking deletion of the second additional issue, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court. There are no merits in this petition. 11. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th January, 2011. Tsy