HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3636 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 28.06.2010, passed in I.A.No.1055 of 2009 in O.P.No.301 of 2009 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore. The first respondent herein, claiming to be the widow of Shaik Nayeem, filed the said claim petition in O.P.No.301 of 2009 claiming compensation against respondents 2 and 3 herein for the death of her husband who died in the motor vehicle accident. In the said O.P., the petitioners herein claiming that they are the children of said Shaik Nayeem through the second respondent filed the present interlocutory application-I.A.No.1055 of 2009 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. praying the Court to permit them to come on record. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order. In the said application, oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of both the parties. The petitioners herein to support their claim that they are the children of the deceased-Shaik Nayeem through the second respondent, examined one Shaik Shakeela as P.W-1 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-4-photographs. On the other hand, the first respondent herein got herself examined as R.W-1 and the documentary evidence under Exs.B-1 to B- 20 were filed. The Court below by relying on the documentary evidence filed by the first respondent herein, dismissed the said application. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said application was dismissed by the Court below without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as their counsel was absent on the date of hearing of the said interlocutory application. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent also filed material papers along with the vacate stay petition before this Court opposing the claim of the petitioners. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Court below. The Court below has elaborately discussed the oral and documentary evidence on record and mainly relying on the documentary evidence in Exs.B-2, B-3, B- 13 and B-14, recorded a finding that the first respondent herein alone was the legally wedded wife of the deceased-Shaik Nayeem. From the material available on record, it is to be noticed that the petitioners herein have filed M.C.No.19 of 2002 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nellore, claiming maintenance against one Sk Jahangir, wherein it is alleged that the said Sk Jahangir is their father. The said application was allowed by the trial Court by its order, dated 04.12.2003, granting maintenance of Rs.400/- per month to each of the petitioners herein. The above said order and the other documents which are placed on record before this Court amply demonstrate that the petitioners are not the sons of Shaik Nayeem. After filing the petition in M.C.No.19 of 2002 against one Jahangir with an allegation that he is their father, it is not open for the petitioners to come on record in the said O.P. on the ground that they are sons of the deceased-Shaik Nayeem. In view of the reasoned findings recorded by the Court below in the impugned order which are based on the documentary evidence adduced by the parties, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order which warrants interference by this Court exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th April 2011 DR