THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No.3867 of 2009 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the revision petitioners, who are plaintiffs in O.S.No.44 of 2008, aggrieved by the order dated 05-12-2008 passed in I.A.No.2363 of 2008 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, allowing the said I.A. filed by the respondents/defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking permission to implead proposed parties, who are tenants, as defendants 3 and 4. Sri N.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs contends that the trial Court ought to have seen that in a dispute between the son on one side and the mother and daughters on the other, in respect of title of the property, the tenants have no concern in the dispute whatsoever. The present application is filed with a mala fide intention i.e., after succeeding to get proposed parties/tenants impleaded, as a next step to proceed to seek deposits of rents in the Court to deprive the petitioners/plaintiffs of their right to receive the rents as per the registered Will. The trial Court has not passed the order impugned by giving cogent and convincing reasons. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Sri R.Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants contends that since the suit is a comprehensive one where the rights of all the parties including the tenants have to be decided, the trial Court has rightly permitted the respondents/defendants to implead proposed parties/tenants as defendants 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs across the bar submitted that tenants are paying rents to the first petitioner/mother, which is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. In view of the above controversy as to payment of rents, the matter requires reconsideration. Hence, without dealing on the merits of the controversy raised herein, the matter is remitted to the Court below to resolve the controversy. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. 27th August, 2009. skmr THE HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No.3867 of 2009 Date : 27-08-2009 Between : Smt.A.Padmavathi and others .. Petitioners And A.Satyanarayana and others .. Respondents