THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1341 and 1431 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Both these Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.495 of 2002 against common order, dated 15.02.2011 passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.Nos.162 and 456 of 2010. The petitioners in both these revision petitions have filed aforesaid suit for partition against the first respondent/sole defendant, who died during pendency of the suit, as such, in the said suit, they have filed I.A.No.162 of 2010 seeking to bring on record proposed respondents 2 to 8 therein as legal representatives of the deceased defendant, stating that they are brothers and sisters of her and as she had no issues, they have to be brought on record as her legal representatives. At the same time, one Shaik Ahmed Pasha, who is the second respondent in C.R.P.No.1431 of 2011, claiming to be the son of the deceased first respondent, has filed I.A.No.456 of 2010. Both the applications were considered together by the impugned common order, by which, the Court below has dismissed I.A.No.162 of 2010 and allowed I.A.No.456 of 2010. The Court below allowed I.A.No.456 of 2010 filed by the second respondent in C.R.P.No.1431 of 2011, mainly relying on birth and family member certificates, dated 07.05.2010 and 08.03.2010 respectively, filed by him to show that the deceased defendant is his mother, whereas the Court below dismissed I.A.No.162 of 2010 mainly on the ground that as the alleged son of the deceased defendant is on record, there is no need to bring on record proposed respondents 2 to 8 therein. In these Civil Revision Petitions, it is contended by Sri C.A.R.Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners that the sole defendant died issueless and the second respondent in C.R.P.No.1431 of 2011 is not her son. Learned counsel has referred to the deposition of the sole defendant, who was examined as D.W.1, and submitted that she stated therein that she had no issues. It is also submitted that in view of disputes, the Court below ought to have allowed I.A.No.162 of 2010 also, so as to make further enquiry that who are the real legal representatives, by framing appropriate issues for deciding the suit. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents in both these revisions that even after receipt of the notices, the proposed respondents in I.A.No.162 of 2010 have expressed their unwillingness to come on record, as such, the petitioners have no grievance to pursue the applications. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused a copy of the common order passed by the trial Court. It is to be noticed that I.A.No.456 of 2010 was allowed mainly on the ground that correctness of the birth and family member certificates could be examined at an appropriate stage. It is also to be noticed that the proposed respondents in I.A.No.162 of 2010 are brothers and sisters of the deceased defendant. Though the relationship is not disputed, having regard to the allegation of the petitioners that the second applicant in I.A.No.456 of 2010 is not the son of the deceased defendant, the Court below ought to have allowed I.A.No.162 of 2010 also in order to give an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence for deciding who are the correct legal representatives of the deceased defendant, after framing appropriate issues in the suit. For the aforesaid reasons, while I do not find any illegality in allowing I.A.No.456 of 2010, at the same time, I am of the view that there are no valid reasons recorded by the trial Court in dismissing I.A.No.162 of 2010. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.1341 of 2011 is allowed and the impugned common order to the extent of dismissing I.A.No.162 of 2010 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.162 of 2010 stands allowed. C.R.P.No.1431 of 2011 is dismissed confirming the impugned common order to the extent of allowing I.A.No.456 of 2010. It is made clear that if there is any dispute with regard to the claim of legal representatives and their relationship with the deceased defendant, it is open for the Court below to frame appropriate issues, record evidence adduced by the parties in relation thereto and decide the matter. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 14th OCTOBER, 2011. kvni