THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P.No.2725 of 2006 Date: 17.06.2010 Between: Turlapati Ramesh Babu … Petitioner AND Maripudi HanumanthaRao and 5 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P. No.2725 of 2006 ORDER: The order dated 23.03.2006 passed by the Principal Senior Judge, Narasaraopet in I.A.No.58 of 2006 in I.A.No.571 of 2002 in O.S.No.275 of 1989 whereby the first respondent herein was permitted to come on record in I.A.No.571 of 2002 is assailed in this revision. 2. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.275 of 1989 for declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed on 10.11.2000. It is stated that the possession of the suit schedule property was also recovered through Court on 26.02.2001. I.A.No.571 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC for ascertainment of mesne profits and to pass a final decree. 3. During the pendency of the said application, the first defendant in the suit/second respondent herein, Smt. T. Venkayamma died. As she was issueless, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.514 of 2005 under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC seeking to bring on record her brother-in-law, T. Koteshwar Rao, as her legal representative. The said application was ordered on 08.12.2005 and the legal representative was arrayed as respondent No.6 in I.A.No.571 of 2002. While so, the first respondent herein filed an application in I.A.No.58 of 2006 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to come on record in the I.A. as respondent No.7 seeking to represent the estate of the deceased first defendant on the basis of a Will dated 17.05.1994 said to have been executed by her. By order dated 23.03.2006, the lower Court allowed the said application leading to the filing of the present C.R.P. 4. By order dated 23.06.2006, this Court granted interim suspension of the order dated 23.03.2006, which was thereafter extended until further orders. 5. In spite of service of notice, the first respondent did not choose to put in his appearance before this Court either in person or through counsel. 6. Sri D. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the order of the lower Court is unsustainable in law and on facts. He pointed out that the earlier application in I.A.No.514 of 2005 filed under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. was already ordered on 08.12.2005, whereby the estate of the deceased defendant was adequately represented. That being so, the learned counsel submitted that the lower Court ought not to have entertained an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to once again add another legal representative to represent the estate of the deceased first defendant. 7. The learned counsel also pointed out the discrepancy in the certified copy of the impugned order and the docket order. He submitted that the first respondent was the General Power of Attorney holder of the deceased first defendant, who died on 26.10.2004 and therefore, the delay on his part in filing the subject application in 2006 should have been taken into account by the lower Court. 8. The facts on record clearly establish that the estate of the deceased first defendant was represented by her brother-in-law who was brought on record through a properly presented application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. Thus, the application filed by the first respondent under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking to come on record as a legal representative was, on the face of it, not maintainable. 9. Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the discrepancy in the certified copy of the order impugned and the docket copy thereof clearly demonstrates that an addition was made in the certified copy to the effect that the respondents in the I.A. had no objection for allowing the application. This was clearly an after thought and does not find reflection on the docket, a certified copy of which is placed before this Court. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, the order passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.58 of 2006 in I.A.No.571 of 2002 in O.S.No.275 of 1989 is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 23.03.2006 passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.58 of 2006 in I.A.No.571 of 2002 in O.S.No.275 of 1989 is set aside. The lower Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.571 of 2002 in O.S.No.275 of 1989 expeditiously. No order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 17.06.2010 Isn