THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.2754 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 01.06.2010 passed in I.A. No. 95 of 2010 in O.S. No. 73 of 2001 by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, permitting respondent No.4 herein, defendant No.9 in the suit, to file written statement and respondents 2 to 5 herein, defendants 7, 8 and 10, to adopt the same. Brief facts of the case are that one M. Pushpavathi filed the suit O.S. No. 73 of 2001 before the Court below, for partition of the suit schedule properties. One M. Shiva Prasad was defendant No.2 in the said suit. Defendant No.2, except adopting the written statement filed by petitioner No.1 herein, namely defendant No.1, by filing an adoption memo, did not file a separate written statement. While so, after the death of defendant No.2, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein, his wife and children, came on record as defendant Nos. 7 to 10, in the capacity of his legal heirs. Thereafter, they filed the present petition, stating that defendant No.2 was under the control and influence of petitioner No.1-defendant No.1 who was the Kartha of the joint family and taking advantage of the same, defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5 conspired, to have unlawful gain and got filed an adoption memo by defendant No.2, adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1, which is, in fact, detrimental to the interest of defendant No.2 and his legal heirs, and as the same came to their notice, upon their coming on record, they filed the present application praying the Court below to permit defendant No.9 to file his written statement and defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 10 to adopt the same. Petitioner No. 1 herein, defendant No.1, filed his counter- affidavit, opposing grant of relief sought in the present application and denying the allegation of his influencing defendant No.2 and got filing the adoption memo by him. He contended that defendant Nos. 7 to 10, being the legal heirs of defendant No.2, are stepping into the shoes of defendant No.2 and they cannot take a different stand from the one that has been taken by defendant No.2. The Court below, having considered the rival pleadings and taking note of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sumtibai and others v. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm[1] and its applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present petition, held in favour of the respondents herein and accordingly allowed the petition, by the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the order under revision and other material on record. Admittedly, defendant Nos. 7 to 10 are the legal heirs of defendant No.2 and they came on record, after the death of defendant No.2. According to them, the written statement filed by defendant No.1, which was adopted by defendant No.2, is detrimental to their interest and therefore they are entitled to file their written statement. Since it is the case of defendant Nos. 7 to 10 that they being the legal heirs of defendant No.2, are entitled to share of defendant No.2 in the suit schedule property and that they have evidence to substantiate their contention, and having regard to the fact that defendant No.2 has share in the suit schedule property, the Court below, pending consideration of the said issues in the suit, felt it appropriate to grant leave to defendant Nos. 7 to 10 to file additional written statement. I n Sumtibai and others v. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm, cited supra, the apex Court held that the legal representatives are entitled to file additional statement and take such pleas as may be available to them and that application for grant of leave for filing additional written statement shall not be rejected. Since in the instant case, respondents-defendant Nos. 7 to 10 are the legal heirs of defendant No.2, and having regard to the judgment of the apex Court, referred to above, I am of the considered opinion that defendant Nos. 7 to 10, are entitled to grant of leave to file additional written statement and take such pleas as may be available to them, and therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Court below granting leave to the petitioner to file additional written statement, particularly when it is alleged by defendant Nos. 7 to 10 that petitioner No.1-defendant No.1 influenced defendant No.2 to file adoption memo, adopting the written statement filed by him. For the foregoing reasons, this Court 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. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 8th October, 2010 IBL [1] AIR 2007 SC 3166