THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4482 of 2011 ORDER: Respondents 2 and 3 filed O.S.No.23 of 2001 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, against the deceased-1st respondent, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein got himself impleaded as the 2nd defendant. It is stated that the 1st respondent died on 24.05.2010. The second respondent i.e., the 1st plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of the 1st respondent i.e. 1st defendant. The 3rd respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent. Both of them filed I.A.No.967 of 2010 under Rule 4 of Order 22 C.P.C. with a prayer to treat them as the legal representatives of the deceased-1st respondent. The application was opposed by the petitioner, mainly on two grounds viz., that the application was filed beyond 90 days and that respondents 2 and 3 cannot be treated as the legal representatives of the deceased-1st respondent. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 08.09.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit was filed only against one defendant viz., the 1st respondent herein. It is at a later stage that the petitioner got himself impleaded as the 2nd defendant. But for the fact that the petitioner got himself impleaded, the suit would have abated with the death of the 1st respondent. The necessity to continue the proceedings arose, on account of the petitioner being on record as the 2nd defendant. It is true that the application was filed after expiry of 90 days. It would have been barred by limitation, if only the effort was to bring some third parties as legal representatives of the deceased party. In case, some of the persons who were already parties to a suit are to be treated as legal representatives of a deceased party, the limitation does not apply as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Changki Village through Tinnunokcha Ao vs. Tibungba Ao[1] So far as the plea of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 are not the legal representatives of the deceased- 1st respondent is concerned, this is not the time or occasion to go into that aspect. The bringing of legal representatives of the deceased party on record is only for the limited purpose of continuing the proceedings. By itself, such a step does not confer or take away the rights of the parties. The petitioner can certainly establish his plea as to the relation between respondents 2 and 3 with the deceased-1st respondent. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to put forward all his contentions as to the genuinity of the alleged adoption and other relevant facts. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 24.10.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4482 of 2011 Date: 24.10.2011 JSU [1] AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 73