@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.@mdashPetitioners presented plaint in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties. The relief as to partition was claimed against the respondents/defendants 1 to 5. Defendants 6 to 32 are said to be the tenants in respect of various items of properties. The office of the trial Court raised an objection as to how defendants 6 to 32 are necessary parties to the suit. Other objections were also raised. Petitioners re-presented the plaint by stating that the presence of defendants 6 to 32 in the suit is necessary since the question of deposit of rents, attornment of tenancies etc., would arise. The trial Court sustained the objection raised by the office and returned the plaint through endorsement dated 10-06-2010. The same is challenged in this revision.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. It is no doubt true that no relief of partition is claimed against defendants 6 to 32 . However, their presence is necessary in the context of depositing of rents, distribution of the same among the sharers and ultimately for attornment of tenancies in the event preliminary decree is passed.
4. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the objection raised by the trial Court is overruled. No order as to costs.
