THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2 5 6 9 OF 2009. O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 01-4-2009 passed in Memo.SR.No. 11238 of 2008 in RA.No.11 of 2006 by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, observing that the appellant counsel filed memo requesting time to bring the legal representatives of the deceased appellant in I.A.No. 434 of 2008 and allowed the same by permitting the appellant counsel to bring the legal representatives on record in the grounds of appeal also and heard the appellant counsel. But for hearing respondents counsel the matter was posted to 09-4- 2009, the present revision is filed by the petitioner-respondent. 2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate court to appreciate that I.A.No. 434 of 2008 was filed seeing to st aside the dismissal order and to restore the main appeal and that once the said application is allowed, the appeal will be restored and therefore, the counsel for the revision petitioner seeks to contend that the petitioners in I.A.No.434 of 2008 cannot automatically come on record without filing an application to bring them on record in the main appeal as legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant. He further submits that the lower appellate also did not appreciate that since steps have not been taken in the main appeal to bring the legal representatives of sole appellant on record within the time prescribed, without there being an application for condonation of delay to bring on record cannot be allowed. The lower appellate court was under erroneous presumption that since the respondents 2 to 4 herein were brought on record in I.A.No.434 of 2008 but there is no necessity for taking such steps to file separate application in the main appeal to bring them on record is perse illegal and without jurisdiction. He also contends that carrying amendment by bringing the legal representatives on record in I.A.No.434 of 2008 cannot be treated as the petition filed in the main appeal. In fact, steps for bringing legal representatives should be made in the main suit or the appeal and application filed in the interlocutory application cannot be treated as an interlocutory application in the main proceedings. Further the impugned order was passed at the time of closing of working day and without allowing the appellants to carry out the amendment and also without allowing the appellant to file amended fair copy of grounds of appeal and without hearing the appeal, the lower appellate court has recorded as if the counsel for the appellant has been heard and posted the appeal for hearing the counsel for the respondent, i.e., revision petitioner on 09-4-2009. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the amendment was carried out and fair copy was filed on 09-4- 2009 and the appeal has been posted for hearing the counsel for revision petitioner. The impugned docket order goes to show that the counsel for the appellant requested time by filing a memo to bring the legal representatives on record even without filing petition and without service of copy of memo to the revision petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to law and the result of exercising its jurisdiction is illegal. 3. Per contra, Mr.Mir Masood Khan, the learned counsel representing the respondents-appellants denied the contentions raised by Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-respondents and would maintain that I.A.No. 532 of 2008, which was filed on 10-9-2008 to bring the legal representatives of the sole deceased on record. The learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that the said I.A. was filed in R.A.No.11 of 2006 but the counsel for the revision petitioner disputed the said fact that I.A. is filed in the restoration petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and in view of the controversy raised in R.A.No. 11 of 2006, which is still pending adjudication and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that I.A.No.532 of 2008 is pending consideration, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, to dispose of I.A.No.532 of 2008 on merits and in accordance with law, if not, already disposed of and amend the cause title accordingly. The counsel for the respondent is at liberty move any such application, if not already filed. 5. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. 21-08-2009. I s L