B. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) ALL these Civil Revision Petitions involve a common question of law and the facts and thus, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE tenants are the petitioners in these civil revision cases. The respondents are landlords. They purchased the premises occupied by different petitioners as tenants by reason of the registered sale deed dated 7-12-1984. ( 3 ) PETITIONS were filed for eviction of the said tenants by the Landlord purported to be in terms of Section 10 (3) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "rent Control Act" ). Apart from defences in all the cases taken in individual cases, the main defence of the petitioners was that landlords are not entitled to maintain the aforementioned petitions for eviction. ( 4 ) THE said petitions were dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that the same were not maintainable under law as the respondents were not in occupation of any portion of building in question. Aggrieved by the same, the landlords who are respondents herein filed rent Control Appeals under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act before the Rent control Appellate Authority-cum-Senior civil Judge. During the pendency of the appeals, the 2nd appellant (landlord) filed a suit in O. S. No. 21 of 1994 on the file of subordinate Judge s Court. Vizianangaram for partition of the joint family properties including the petition schedule premises against the other appellants 1 and 3. The suit was decreed on the terms of compromise petition filed by the parties thereto. The learned appellate authority allowed the appeals filed by the landlords taking into consideration the changed circumstances occurred during the pendency of the appeals and on the ground that the requirements of the appellants 2 and 3 therein are bona fide and thereby directed the tenants to vacate the premises within three months. Aggrieved by the orders of the appellants Authority, the present civil revision petitions have been filed by the tenants-petitioners under section 22 of the Rent Control Act. Aggrieved by the orders of the appellants Authority, the present civil revision petitions have been filed by the tenants-petitioners under section 22 of the Rent Control Act. ( 5 ) SRI T. Veerabhadraiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in C. R. P. No. 2009 of 2000 inter alia submitted that despite the fact that the court of appeal allowed an application for amendment in terms of Order VI Rule 17 of c. P. C. , only the memo of appeal was amended and not the respective eviction petitions. It was submitted that no opportunity had been granted to the petitioners herein to file additional written statements, nor any opportunity was given to them to adduce any evidence to the effect that contentions raised in the amendment application are incorrect. It has been pointed out that having regard to the fact that the Lawyers were on strike on the date when the plaintiffs witness was examined, the petitioners neither could cross-examine the witness nor could they adduce any evidence in support of their case and thus impugned orders should be set aside. In support of the aforementioned contention, strong reliance has been placed on decisions of Apex Court in Rafiq vs. Munshilal wherein the Apex Court observed as under:"the problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. May be that the learned advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. " ( 6 ) RELIANCE in this connection has also been placed in Lachi Tewari vs. Director of land Records. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel would contend that the petition is not maintainable because it is filed against the individual and not against the firm, as pointed out by the court of the first instance. Our attention has been drawn to the following findings of the learned Rent Controller:". . . . . . IN view of Ex. B-1 the finding of the petition against an individual without impleading the firm cannot be said to be proper and maintainable. Our attention has been drawn to the following findings of the learned Rent Controller:". . . . . . IN view of Ex. B-1 the finding of the petition against an individual without impleading the firm cannot be said to be proper and maintainable. On this aspect, I am of the opinion that the petition is not maintainable as against the respondent. " ( 8 ) IT was pointed out that as all the partners were not made as parties in the eviction proceedings, the said application was not maintainable, but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate authority at all. ( 9 ) MR. K. V. Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2001 of 2000 has submitted that when the lawyers are on strike, the Courts should recall its order and in this connection, strong reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Subhash Kapoor the material portion of which reads as under:"now the party says that his absence may be viewed from a broader angle particularly on account of the following back ground. . . . . . . . . Appellant says that it was not possible to make arrangements for appearing in Court on the succeeding day at such a short notice and from such a long distance. He would have thought that the Courts could not function when the Advocates were on strike though he later realised that was a wrong assumption. He made out a case for setting aside the ex parte order, atleast on some terms because his non- appearance was attributable entirely to the firm of advocates whom he engaged. " ( 10 ) IN the same decision, the Apex Court has also relied upon Mahabir Prasad Singh vs. Jacks Aviation and observed as under:"when the advocate who was engaged by a party was on strike, there is no obligation on the part of the court either to wait or to adjourn the case on that account. Time and again, this Court has said that an advocate has no right to stall the Court proceedings on the ground that advocates have decided to strike or to boycott the Courts or even boycott any particular Court. Time and again, this Court has said that an advocate has no right to stall the Court proceedings on the ground that advocates have decided to strike or to boycott the Courts or even boycott any particular Court. " ( 11 ) IT was pointed out that all the eviction petitions were disposed of purportedly on the directions of this Court in earlier civil revision petitions. But so far as eviction petition in C. R. P. No. 1963 of 2000 is concerned, no such direction was given. But, despite the same, the said petition had also been taken up for hearing and disposed of with the other applications. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that when the appeal was pending, one of the respondents died and his legal heirs were brought on record as L. Rs, but although the death of respondent No. 2 took place during the pendency of the appeal, but no person was brought in his place on record and thus, the entire appeal abated. Reliance in this connection has been placed on a decision of this Court in Komati Basavamma vs. Narindi mahalakshmaiah. It was further submitted that having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs - respondents have purchased the suit property on 11-12-1984 and the notice of eviction having been issued only on 31-12-1984, the eviction petitions filed on 11-3-1985 could not have been maintained. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to the findings of the learned Rent controller to the following effect:". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE petition cannot be maintainable under Section 10 (3) as p. W. 1 is not in premises of any portion of the building in question". ( 13 ) MR. P. R. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 (landlords)on the other hand would submit that the strike of the lawyers cannot be by itself a ground for setting aside the appellate order as the appellate authority had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and law. ( 13 ) MR. P. R. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 (landlords)on the other hand would submit that the strike of the lawyers cannot be by itself a ground for setting aside the appellate order as the appellate authority had taken into consideration all the relevant facts and law. The learned Counsel would submit that the Court while passing a decree for eviction can take into consideration the subsequent events and was, therefore not even necessary to file a petition for amendment of plaint as envisaged under Order VI Rule 17, C. P. C. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on Ramesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram. ( 14 ) MR. Prasad, learned Counsel would urge that in view of the long pendency of the eviction matters, this Court in earlier civil revision petitions directed those matters to be disposed of at an early date and framed a time limit therefor. In that view of the matter, the learned appellate authority cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in disposing of the appeal even without giving an opportunity to the Civil Revision Petitioners herein either to file additional written statement or to adduce any evidence in support of their case. According to the learned Counsel, the tenants who were present in Court could have cross-examined the witnesses on behalf of the landlord and adduced their own evidence as has been done by his clients. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel would contend that from the cause title of the C. R. P. No. 2009 of 2000, it would appear that the managing Partner of the firm was impleaded as party and as regards the non- substitution of heirs, it is submitted that all the heirs and legal representatives were on record. ( 16 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that without going into the respective rival contentions raised by the parties herein, the c. R. Ps. can be disposed of on a short question. Although a time frame had been fixed by this Court in the CRPs filed by the landlord, the fact that the petitioners herein could not be represented through their counsel, had caused substantial prejudice to them. can be disposed of on a short question. Although a time frame had been fixed by this Court in the CRPs filed by the landlord, the fact that the petitioners herein could not be represented through their counsel, had caused substantial prejudice to them. In a civil proceedings, the litigants are normally represented by a Counsel and the litigants are not supposed to know the technicalities of law nor can they be expected to know the art of cross-examination. Several technical questions which had been raised by this Court would go to show that the learned appellate authority had failed to take notice of the vital aspects of the matter which might have changed the ultimate decision of the Court having regard to the various technical pleas available to the petitioners. ( 17 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter which requires an order of remand to the court below. Although having regard to the various decisions of the Apex Court, the court is entitled to take all subsequent events into consideration for the purpose of shortening the litigation, however, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that by reason of subsequent events if any new plea is taken, the same can be done only by way of amendment of the petition. It is not in dispute that in a proceeding for eviction, the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure code would apply. By reason of an order passed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil procedure Code, the Court grants leave to the parties to amend their respective pleadings, but the amendment is required to be effected within a period of 15 days in terms of Order VI Rule 18 thereof. ( 18 ) UNLESS and until the pleadings as such are amended, the question of allowing the parties to adduce any evidence therefor would not arise. Further more, when such pleadings are amended, the defendants are entitled to file additional pleadings as envisaged under Order VIII Rule 9 of C. P. C. No Court could deprive the tenants from exercising such right. Having regard to the fact that the landlords herein had adduced fresh evidence for the purpose of establishing a ground for eviction, the petitioners were entitled to adduce evidence contra. Having regard to the fact that the landlords herein had adduced fresh evidence for the purpose of establishing a ground for eviction, the petitioners were entitled to adduce evidence contra. The tenants petitioners herein were entitled to bring on record all the requisite facts in order to show that the compromise decree passed in favour of the respondents was obtained collusively by the parties with a view to get rid of the Full bench decision of this Court in Vidya Bai vs. Shankerial whereupon the Rent Controller strongly relied on for dismissing the eviction petitions. It is, thus, open to the petitioners to contend that the matter is set at naught by reason of the collusive partition suit wherein they were not parties. ( 19 ) IN this situation, this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction is of the opinion that justice would be done to both the parties if period for amemding the eviction petition is extended By 15 days from date and two weeks thereafter, additional written statement be filed by the petitioners. The petitioners herein may further be entitled to cross-examine all the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents herein and adduce evidence contra. ( 20 ) ALL other questions including the question as to the consequent of non- impleadmeni of all the partners of the firm and non-substitution of one of the tenants as also maintainability of eviction petition, are left open. Having regard to the fact that the matters are pending for a long time, it is directed that the Court of Appeal would dispose of the eviction appeals at an early date not later than three months from the date of receipt of the records or a copy of this order whichever is later. The C. R. Ps. are accordingly, allowed and in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.