HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:423 OF 2010 Dated: 10.2.2010 Between: 1. L.P. Mehra (died) and others. ..Petitioners And 1. S. Krishna and others. .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:423 OF 2010 ORDER: Challenging the order, dated 07.09.2009 in I.A.No.160 of 2009 in R.C.No.32 of 2005 passed by the learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. The petitioners herein filed the above application before the Court below under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to permit them to add paragraph No.6(a) on the ground that eviction petition has been filed against respondents 1 to 4 in respect of the petition schedule property and on the date of filing of the eviction petition, the 1st petitioner was the joint owner of the suit schedule property having 2/3rd share and that the remaining 1/3rd share, owned by his brother Ganesh Prasad, who died leaving behind respondents 5 to 13, was purchased by the petitioners under a registered sale deed executed by respondents 5 to 13. The said fact was informed to respondents 1 to 4, but they failed to tender the rent to the petitioners. As the sale deed was executed during the pendency of the eviction petition, the petitioner could not plead the said fact. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a counter before the Court below denying the sale deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the petitioners. They contended that the legal representatives of late Ganesh Prasad are not entitled to sell the property nor the petitioners are entitled to purchase the property so long as the disputes involved in Appeal No.478 of 1998 are resolved. The Court below having observed that there is an appeal pending before the High Court in respect of the property in question and respondents 1 to 4 are contesting the same and that if the petitioners succeed in the appeal, automatically they get a chance to seek eviction of respondents 1 to 4, dismissed the application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present application has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the petitioners that they purchased the property in question under a registered sale deed executed by respondents 5 to 13, during the pendency of the eviction petition and therefore, they may be permitted to add paragraph No.6(a) in the plaint and that the names of respondents No.5 to 13 may be deleted as they do not have any rights in any part of the schedule property. In view of the pendency of the appeal between the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 4 before this Court in respect of the property in question, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 10th February, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:423 OF 2010 10.02.2010