B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 8-9-2003 made in e. A. No. 365 of 2003 in E. P. No. 60 of 2003 on the file of the learned XI Junior Civil judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in the said E. A. is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The learned trial Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein under order XVI, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon the document viz. , the letter of consent dated 10-6-1999 from M/s. Modern garments, Bangalore. The said letter is purported to have been given by the 1st respondent-decree holder to M/s. Modern garments, Bangalore. The learned trial judge after a very elaborate consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the very existence of the consent letter dated 10-6-1999 itself is doubtful. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned judge came to the conclusion that the said consent letter alleged to have been given by the 1st respondent-decree holder in favour of M/s. Modern Garments, bangalore, is not required to be summoned for adjudication of the claim petition filed by the petitioner herein in E. A. No. 244 of 2003.

( 3 ) IN order to consider as to whether the impugned order suffers from any incurable legal infirmities and errors apparent on the face of the record requiring our interference in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India, we consider it appropriate to refer to a few relevant facts.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the 1st respondent herein is the landlord of the premises bearing no. 1-6-51, Parklane, M. G. Road, secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as the said premises ). The said premises was leased out to the 2nd respondent herein under a registered lease deed dated 5-4-1974. It is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of this civil revision petition to refer the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Suffice it to note that the 2nd respondent was conducting the business in the name and style of variety Hosieries .

( 5 ) THE 1st respondent herein filed O. S. No. 530 of 1993 on the file of XI Junior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking eviction of the 2nd respondent from the said premises. The said suit ended in a compromise vide compromise decree dated 27-1-1994 under which the 2nd respondent is required to vacate the said premises and handover the possession thereof to the 1st respondent-owner by 31-3-2003 and he shall pay rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000. 00 per month with effect from 1-4-1993. Further, the terms and conditions of the memorandum of Compromise recorded by the Court expressly prohibited the 2nd respondent from subletting or parting with the possession of the demised premises. Suffice it to note that the 1st respondent had agreed under the compromise decree to concede ten years period in order to enable the 2nd respondent to vacate the premises and handover the same.

( 6 ) THE fact remains that the 2nd respondent continued to remain in possession even after 31-3-2003 and did not vacate the said premises. The 1st respondent filed E. P. No. 60 of 2003 in O. S. No. 530 of 1993 on the file of the learned XI Junior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for execution of the compromise decree.

( 7 ) THE petitioner herein is none other than the cousin brother of the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent in order to defeat his valuable rights under the compromise decree set up the petitioner herein to file a claim petition in E. A. No. 244 of 2003 in E. P. No. 60 of 2003 wherein the petitioner has contended that the premises was leased out to him on 9-3-1975 under a lease agreement executed by the 2nd respondent herein on a monthly rent of Rs. 950. 00 per month. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 1st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document