THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.583 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet in I.A.No.250 of 2009 in O.S.No.13 of 2008 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 4 (1) read with section 151 C.P.C. to permit the petitioner to bring the legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant was rejected. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner herein instituted the above suit for partition of the suit schedule properties and also to put him in possession of his legitimate share. The defendant therein entered appearance and was contesting the suit by filing written statement. However, during the pendency of the said suit the sole defendant died on 15.05.2009. Coming to know of the death of the defendant, the petitioner filed the present application stating that the legal representative of the sole defendant is one G. Vijay Kumar and as such he has to be brought on record as defendant. Surprisingly the counsel appearing for the defendant filed a counter affidavit stating that the said Vijay Kumar is not the legal representative of the deceased defendant and taking into consideration the said aspect, the court below dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision. 3 Heard the counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. Ashok Kumar. 4 In my considered view, the said order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is misconceived and illegal. When once the sole defendant died it is not known whom the said counsel is representing and under what instructions he filed the said counter stating that the said Vijay Kumar is not the legal representative of the deceased defendant Hampamma. The Court, either has to order notice to the said Vijay Kumar as he is said to be the legal representative of the said Hampamma, or has to hold an enquiry into the veracity or otherwise of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said Vijay Kumar is the legal representative of the deceased Hampamma. In my considered view, the moment the defendant dies, the counsel appearing for the said deceased defendant ceases to be her counsel. Even if he files a counter stating certain facts the court ought not to have taken those aspects into consideration for the reason that he is no more defending the said defendant and since the said defendant is not in existence. 5 In the light of the above discussion, this revision is allowed. The order impugned in this revision is hereby set aside and the court below is hereby directed to issue notice to the said Vijay Kumar who is said to be the legal representative of the deceased defendant Hampamma, hold enquiry and decide as to whether the said Vijay Kumar is the legal representative of the said sole defendant or not. No order as to costs. -------------- 03.03.2010 Kvsn