IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD (3rd) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2667 of 2009 Between: C. Narasimha Reddy & another … Petitioners And: UTI Technologies Ltd., & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2667 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 20.03.2009 in IA No.375 of 2009 in OS No.93 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein the said petition filed by the petitioners herein under Order 15-A read with section 151 CPC was allowed in part, directing the first respondent to deposit the rent for the period from October 2006 to February 2009 into Court. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the rents are due from 2003 onwards and the application is filed seeking direction to deposit the rents from 2003 onwards, but the trial Court gave direction to the first respondent to deposit the rents from October 2006 to February 2009 and the impugned order is silent about the earlier period from 2003 and the impugned order does not disclose any reasons for not granting the relief in respect of the rents allegedly due from 2003 onwards. 4. Learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that the rents for the period from 2003 onwards were paid to the 2nd respondent and it is only after the plaintiff issued notice on 26.03.2006 that the said payment to the 2nd respondent was stopped. 5. The question as to whether or not payment of rent for the disputed period by the first respondent or 2nd respondent is true and whether or not it constitutes valid tender, are all matters to be considered by the trial Court during the course of trial, which is stated to be in progress. As the trial of the suit reached the stage of recording of evidence of defendants, it is inappropriate to consider the issue regarding claim of the petitioners for rents in respect of the period from 2003 onwards in the present revision, as the same is disputed question of fact. 6. It is well settled that under Order 15-A CPC it is only that portion of the claim which is admitted that can be directed to be satisfied, but not the portion of the claim which is disputed. The trial Court would certainly consider the claim of the petitioners for rents in respect of the period from 2003 onwards on its own merits at the time of final disposal of the suit. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not therefore call for any interference by this Court. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 03.08.2011 bss