THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 3922 & 3892 of 2009 Date of order: 11-09-2009 Between: Bommareddy Srimannarayana @ Raja ..petitioner in both the revisions. And 1. Upadhyulu sita (died) and others. ..Respondents in both the revisions The court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 3922 & 3892 of 2009 Common order: These two revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution are directed against the orders dated 01-05-2009 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada in I.A.Nos.638 and 639 of 2009 respectively in O.S.No.10 of 2001. Smt. Upadhyayula Sita filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by her in favour of the petitioner herein, who is the defendant in the suit. Pending suit she died and respondents 2 to 5 herein are added as legal representatives of the deceased—1st plaintiff as per orders in I.A.No.2633 of 2005 dated 22-02-2006 and respondents 6 to 9 herein are added as legal representatives of the deceased—2nd plaintiff as per orders dated 21-07-2008 in I.A.No.1959 of 2008 and after the parties lead their evdience the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.638 of 2009 under Section 151 CPC for reopening the suit and I.A.No.639 of 2009 under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC for deletion of names of the plaintiffs 2 to 9 from the long and short cause title of the suit stating that on his changing the advocate, the newly engaged advocate while browsing the bundle came across Ex.A22 document filed by the plaintiff and advised him to file a petition under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w 151 CPC; Ex.A22 —ration card said to have been issued to the deceased—Sita shows that she got a son by name U.K.S.Abhinav; as per the provisions of the Hindu Successin Act, where son is alive, the plaintiffs 2 to 9 cannot be the legal heirs or legal representatives of the deceased—1st plaintiff and their names have to be struck down. On dismissal of both the I.As. The present revisions have been filed. It is not in dispute in the plaint filed by U.Sita it is categorically mentioned that she did not beget children by her husband—Venkat Rao and she got the property from her husband by succession because she had no children. On her death, I.A.Nos.2633 of 2005 and 1959 of 2008 were filed to bring the legal representatives of U.Sita on record which were allowed as no objection was raised by the defendant in the said I.As. In view of the same, the lower court rightly dismissed the present applications filed by the petitoner for deletion of names of the plaintiffs 2 to 9 by re-opening the suit. The discretion exercised by the lower court in dismissing the I.As. do not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting correction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Both the revisions are accoridngly dismissed. The lower court has to decide the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court on all the issues framed in the suit. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 11-09-2009 Murthy