THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2008 of 2009 ORDER: The respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.1175 of 2005 in the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C.) Ranga Reddy District against respondents 3 and 4 and one Mr. Mhod. Abdul Gaffar, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The third defendant i.e., Mohd. Abdul Gaffar, the father of the petitioner herein, died on 10.11.2006. Before that he was set ex parte on 31.03.2006. His son, the petitioner herein, filed application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to add him as defendant No.4 in the suit. The application was opposed by respondents 3 and 4, who are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The trial Court through its order, dated 24.01.2009 dismissed the I.A. Hence this revision petition. Heard Sri M. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Krishna Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the contesting respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner filed application under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to add him as defendant No.4 in the suit. The sole basis for that application was that his father, who was defendant No.3 in the suit, died on 10.11.2006. The application was opposed by respondents 3 and 4 alone. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs, in a way, expressed their no objection for the application. The trial Court stated two reasons for dismissal of the application. The first reason was that a set of applications filed by the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent was dismissed as not necessary and the second reason was that the petitioner did not approach the Court, in time, to add him as a party to the suit. So far as the first ground is concerned, steps were taken under Order XXII C.P.C, by the plaintiff to set aside the abatement caused on account of the death of the third defendant, to condone the delay in filing the application and to bring the legal representatives on record. The trial Court felt that in view of clause (4) of Rule 4 of Order XXII C.P.C., it may not be necessary to order those applications. The fact that the third defendant was set ex parte before he died was taken note of. Assuming that the trial Court adopted the correct procedure in dismissing those applications, the result thereof cannot bind the petitioner herein. Those steps were taken by the plaintiff. In case it becomes necessary to represent the estate of the deceased, the right conferred upon his legal representatives cannot be defeated. So far as the second ground is concerned, the petitioner cannot be found fault for the delay. At no point of time, he was put on notice and he clearly stated that as soon as he came to know about the pendency of the suit, he has instituted the application. At any rate, the respondents 1 and 2, did not raise any objection for adding the petitioner as a party to the suit. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The petitioner shall stand added as defendant No.4. He shall file written statement within a period of three weeks from today. Since the suit is of the year 2005, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same by the end of March 2010. There shall be no order as to cost. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 13th October, 2009 Js.