THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4621 OF 2008 DATED: 25.03.2010 Between: K. Sainath … Petitioner And Venkata Rathnamma (died) K. Venugopal .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4621 OF 2008 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.39 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty. The suit is filed for partition of the suit schedule property. The sole defendant by name Venkata Rathnamma died on 13.9.2007 and to that effect the counsel for the defendant filed a memo before the Court stating that as the defendant bequeathed all her properties in favour of her relative K. Venkata Venugopal, he was the only legal representative of the deceased defendant. The plaintiff raised an objection stating that the said Venugopal, who was claiming the suit properties under a Will allegedly executed by the deceased defendant, was not a natural heir and therefore in the absence of a probate form the Court of the District Judge, Anantapur, he was not entitled to come on record as legal representative of the deceased defendant. The Court below, by order dated 8.7.2008, while holding that the objection raised by the plaintiff that the legatee had to obtain probate was not sustainable, directed the plaintiff to take steps to implead the legatee K. Venugopal as legal representative of the deceased defendant. The said order dated 8.7.2008 is under challenge in this Revision Petition filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order passed by the Court below without conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Order 22 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to look into the Will allegedly executed by the deceased defendant was erroneous and not in accordance with law. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the order under Revision to the extent of holding that it was not necessary for the legatee to obtain the probate did not suffer from any infirmity. As per the Memo filed by the learned counsel for the deceased defendant, she did not leave behind any natural heirs. However the petitioner/plaintiff disputed the entitlement of the legatee to come on record as legal representative of the deceased defendant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below after making the said Memo, which can be said to have been filed under Order 22 Rule 10-A of C.P.C., a part of the record, ought to have granted time to the parties to take appropriate steps in accordance with l aw . Instead, the Court below had straightaway directed the plaintiff to implead the legatee as legal representative of the deceased defendant. The said procedure adopted by the Court below being contrary to law cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the direction in the order under Revision to the effect that the plaintiff shall take steps to implead the legatee K. Venugopal as legal representative is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to take necessary steps as provided under Order 22 of C.P.C. on the basis of the Memo filed by the counsel for the deceased defendant. It is also open to the legatee to make an application to come on record as legal representative of the deceased defendant. If any such application is made, the Court below after making the enquiry as provided under law, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.03.2010 Ivd