THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 1855 of 2009 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 09.02.2009, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 2615 of 2008 in O.S. No. 388 of 2001, filed by petitioners-plaintiffs praying to condone the delay of 1712 days in bring the legal heirs of deceased-defendant No.1 on record in the suit proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants and perused the order under revision. The contention of the petitioners that it is only during the course of cross examination of defendant No.5 they came to know that defendant No.5 is not the legal heir of deceased-defendant No.1 and that he has surviving legal heirs and that by the time, they took steps to bring them on record delay of 1712 days had occurred in filing the L.R. petition, cannot be accepted. The petitioners herein after the death of defendant No.1 filed I.A. No. 796 of 2004 to bring defendant No.5 as the legal heir of defendant No.1. In the said application, the petitioners categorically contended that defendant No.5 is the only legal heir of defendant No.1. By order dated 04.04.2005, allowed the application holding that defendant No.5 alone is the legal heir of defendant No.1. Defendant No.5 after being brought on record as legal representative of defendant No.1 also filed her written statement. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. At that point of time, the petitioners filed the present application. Though the petitioners contended that defendant No.5 claiming to be the legal heir of defendant No.1 through her Advocate filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1, the same is denied, and it is contended that since the Advocate by playing fraud had filed such a memo, defendant No.5 changed the Advocate and filed detailed written statement, taking a categorical stand that she is not the only legal heir of deceased-defendant No.1 and that there are better legal heirs than her. To the very same effect, defendant No.5, as D.W.1 also deposed in her evidence. However, in spite of taking such a stand, the petitioners did not take any steps to bring the other legal heirs of deceased-defendant No.1 on record. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners in spite of having knowledge that defendant No.5 is not the only legal heir of deceased-defendant No.1, and that there are other legal heirs also, did not take any steps to bring them on record. The legal heirs, now sought to be brought on record not being Class-I heirs, and no cogent reason having been assigned for not taking steps to bring the other legal heirs, except stating that they do not know whom to bring as legal representatives of deceased-defendant No.1, the Court below refused to condone the inordinate delay of 1712 days in filing application to bring the other legal heirs on record, and no exception can be taken thereto, and more so when the petitioners filed the present application when the suit is posted for arguments In the above view of the matter, this Courts finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: February, 2010 KSR