HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 2177 of 2009 DATE: 04-03-2011 Between: S. Madhumathi and another ……….. Petitioner and Thota Nagabhushanam and others ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No. 2177 of 2009 ORDER: Heard both sides and at their request, the main Revision Petitions itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioners, who are the claim petitioners, filed this Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 17-02-2009 passed in M.V.O.P.S.R.No.13904 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Admittedly both the husband and wife were injured in an accident and hence resulted in filing two different O.Ps. In the present O.P., subsequent to the filing thereof, the wife died and hence, her husband wanted to come on record, but the Court below rejected the application and O.P. as not maintainable. Hence, the Revision Petition. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the Court below ought to have given opportunity to the second petitioner herein to come on record as legal representative of the deceased since she died after filing of the O.P. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order, dated 17-02-2009 in M.V.O.P.S.R.No.13904 of 2008 is set aside. The Court below is directed to process the main M.V.O.P. and number it. It is also made clear that the present M.V.O.P. may be taken up along with the connected M.V.O.P.No.2906 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and disposed of on merits in accordance with law. It is also made clear that all the petitioners are at liberty to substantiate their claim by adducing appropriate evidence in regard to their entitlement. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 04-03-2011 YCR