THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5301 OF 2007 DATED:07.04.2011 Between: S.Sujatha. .... PETITIONER And Soma Ramesh. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 24.04.2007, in I.A.No.1603 of 2005 in O.S.No.619 of 2000 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Secunderabad, wherein the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XX Rule 12 CPC seeking a direction to the respondent-defendant to pay the arrears of rent/mesne profits for the period from June, 2000 till the delivery of possession, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondent-defendant for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. In the plaint, the relief for grant of subsequent rents with interest thereon was also prayed for but in the decree, dated 30.07.2003, the relief of eviction and arrears of rent of Rs.6800/- (Rs.16,800/- - Rs.10,000/-) alone was granted besides granting three months’ time to the defendant to vacate the premises. The decree is silent without grant of any relief of recovery of the subsequent rents. The appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree was dismissed and hence, the judgment and decree, dated 30.07.2003, has become final. Subsequently, petitioner filed E.P.No.170 of 2005 for recovery of possession, and possession was also delivered through process of Court. Petitioner then filed I.A.No.1603 of 2005 under Order XX Rule 12 CPC seeking a direction to the respondent-defendant to pay the arrears of rent/mesne profits for the subsequent period of June, 2000 till the date of delivery of possession on 06.02.2006. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the decree does not contemplate payment of rent for the said subsequent period. 4. As seen from the decree and it is also not in dispute that the relief of recovery of possession and the relief of recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.6800/- alone were granted. The decree is silent about the grant of any relief regarding the subsequent rents for the period from June, 2000 till the date of delivery of possession though the same is also prayed for in the plaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the respondents for depositing the rents into the Court and the same is also ordered but the respondent failed to deposit the rents. 6. Be that as it may, as the decree is silent about the grant of relief of recovery of subsequent rents from June, 2000, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. The impugned order of the trial Court does not therefore call for any interference. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file an application for amendment of the decree. It is open to the petitioner to seek amendment of the decree and on such application being made, the trial Court shall dispose of the same on its own merits. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th April, 2011. Tsy