THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No.3384 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in I.A. (SR) No.769 of 2010 in R.C. No.268 of 2005. Petitioners filed the aforementioned I.A.(SR) before the learned Rent Controller under Order VII Rule 11(d) and under Section 141 and 151 of C.P.C. praying the Court to reject R.C. No. 268 of 2005 as not maintainable for non-impleadment of the legal representatives of respondent No. 6 as petitioners. It is stated that since the legal representatives of respondent No. 6 are necessary parties, they are required to be brought on record and since they are not brought on record, the R.C. is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties. It is also stated that the suit in O.S. No. 458 of 2009, which was filed for partition was already decreed and the respondents in this petition are parties to the said suit and the petition property is also covered by the said decree. Since the other respondents are not the legal representatives of the deceased respondent and as the legal representatives of the said respondent No.6 are not brought on record, there is conflict of interest among the parties. The learned Rent Controller, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the record, dismissed the said I.A.(SR)., by the order impugned in this revision. Hence, the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Though the petitioners filed the aforementioned I.A.(SR) seeking the learned Rent Controller to reject the R.C. as not maintainable for non- impleadment of the legal representatives of respondent No.6 on the ground that there is conflict of interest among respondent No.6 and the other respondents, however, they have not filed any material to show that such conflict of interest is existing between the respondent No.6 and the other respondents. Under the circumstances, the learned Rent Controller was justified in dismissing the IA(SR). Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision warranting interference. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date:13th August, 2010 pnb