THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2450 of 2010 DT.5.8.2011 Between: Panga Janardhana Rao s/o Subba Rao … Petitioner And Veluvolu rattamma w/o Late Nageswara Rao & ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for respondent: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2450 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, who filed I.A.No.215 of 2010 in O.S.585 of 2009 under Order 23 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur to add respondents 2 to 5 herein as the legal heirs of 1st respondent/defendant as defendants 2 to 5. Though notices were served on the respondents 2 to 5, none appeared. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed the suit O.S.585 of 2009 for recovery of the money basing on the promissory note. It is stated that along with the suit he also filed a petition to attach immovable properties of the sole defendant, which was ordered and attachment was effected in I.A.No.1384 of 2009. The sole defendant contested the suit and in the said suit petitioner was examined himself as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. The defendants also cross-examined the petitioner. Later, the deposition of PW.2 was filed, and when the matter was coming up for cross-examination of PW.2, the 1st defendant died. Thereafter, he came to know that the 1st defendant died on 18-12-2009 intestate leaving behind his wife, two sons and daughter viz., the respondents herein, and therefore, had filed an application in I.A.No.215 of 2010 in the said suit under Order 23 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to add the respondents 2 to 5 herein as the Legal Representatives of the deceased 1st defendant as defendants 2 to 5 in the suit, and consequently, permit him to amend the plaint. The said application was dismissed even without ordering notice on the respondents stating that except the death certificate no other material has been filed. In view of the above stated circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge ought to have issued notice to the respondents so as to enable the Court to find out the genuineness or otherwise of the averments made in the affidavit stating that 2nd respondent herein is the wife and the respondents 3 and 4 are the sons and 5th respondent is the daughter. In fact, though notices have been issued on the respondents, they have not contested the matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 25-3-2010 in I.A.No.215 of 2010 in O.S.No.585 of 2009 filed to bring the legal heirs of 1st respondent-defendant as defendants 2 to 5 is set aside and the same stands allowed. The revision is accordingly allowed. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 5.8.2011 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2450 of 2010 DATE: 5.8.2011