THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.R.P. No. 1444 of 2009 O R D E R: This civil revision petition is directed against an order made in I.A. No. 344 of 2008 in O.S. No. 361 of 2002 dated 18.12.2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to direct respondent therein to deposit the original maktha from 11.4.2002 till the date of filing of the petition was ordered as prayed for. Petitioner is the plaintiff. Respondent is defendant No.5 in the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S. No. 361 of 2002 for specific performance of execution of lease deed in his favour by the defendants. During pendency of the suit, defendant No.5 filed the present I.A. 344 of 2008 under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to recover the arrears of maktha on the ground that he is the owner of the property, therefore, he is entitled for maktha since 11.4.2002 onwards. The said application was considered and ordered as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the present C.R.P. is filed. It is unfortunate that either in the petition or in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A. No. 344 of 2008 the parties were not properly indicated in the cause title and even in the decree they were not properly indicated, whereas, in para 9 of the order passed by the trial Court it is stated “Admittedly, the petitioners/D1 to D5 herein had filed the present petition seeking relief to direct the respondent to pay maktha from 11.4.2002 till the date of filing the petition”. This, on the face of it, appears to be erroneous. Neither the petition in I.A. No. 344 of 2008 or the affidavit filed in support thereof indicates as to who are exactly the parties to the petition, except saying “Vallepu Srinivasulu and others”. The affidavit does not indicate that it has been sworn on behalf of other petitioners- defendants also. Thus, there are number of lacunae in the procedure required to be followed in filing the petition as well as the decision made by the trial Court. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the order under challenge and remanding the matter for reconsideration by permitting the parties to file fresh applications/affidavits as required under the law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, the C.R.P. is allowed and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for reconsideration, as per law. The parties may be permitted to file corrected affidavits as well as petitions, that are necessary according to law. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 19-10-2009. MVB.