This Court ordered notice before admission on 20.4.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period.

2. Sri M.S.R.Subrahmanyam, entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 6 in the Civil Revision Petition are specified as not necessary parties to the petition.

3. Sri Rathangapani Reddy, the learned counsel representing revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2, would maintain that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone, totally erred in allowing the application by granting permission to the first respondent/plaintiff to file rejoinder without considering the fact that two years ago written statement had been filed. The learned counsel also would maintain that the first respondent/plaintiff having been unsuccessful in obtaining injunction thought of this application only with a view to fill up gaps by taking inconsistent pleas. The learned counsel also would maintain that even otherwise they failed to file rejoinder within a reasonable time and after a long lapse of two years after filing the written statement, this application had been filed. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the light of the averments made in the