BASETTI JAYA SREE Vs. DEVAKI LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 filed OS No. 73 of 2006 in the Court of senior Civil Judge, Jagtial against the appellant and respondents 5 and 6, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. They also filed i. A. No. 361 of. 2006 under Rule 10 of order 39 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to direct respondents 5 and 6 herein to deposit the rent for item No. 2 of the suit schedule property, amounting to rs. 1,60,000/- upto Deepavali 2006 and for the subsequent period with 20% enhancement. The appellant filed counter-affidavit opposing the application. Several grounds, including the one, as to the maintainability of the application were raised. Respondents 5 and 6 have also filed counter-affidavit, but in a way, have offered to deposit the amount. Through its order, dated 17. 10. 2008, the trial Court allowed the I. A. Hence, this civil miscellaneous appeal.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that there was absolutely no basis for respondents 1 to 4 to file an application under Rule 10 of Order 39 CPC and that the facts of the case do not fit into that provision. He further submits that when several contentions are advanced, touching on law and facts, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Court, to deal with the same and instead, a cryptic order was passed, contrary to law and facts.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 on the other hand submits that the trial court felt that it is in the interest of all the parties, that the amount is deposited into the court, pending adjudication into the plea for partition, and accordingly passed the order under revision.