HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2300 OF 2011 ORDER: This is a revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, in I.A.No.419 of 2000 in O.P.No.285 of 2009. Originally, the petitioners herein, who are the mother and daughter of deceased Venkataramana, filed the above O.P., seeking to issue succession certificate in their favour so as to enable them to receive the amounts from the official respondents in view of the death of Venkatramana. In the said O.P., the 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.419 of 2000 under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., seeking to implead her as 9th respondent in the O.P., on the ground that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Venkataramana and that the 2nd petitioner is under her care and she admitted her in the school and she is the guardian of the 2nd petitioner and that the 1st petitioner in order to knock away the benefits of the 2nd petitioner filed the above O.P. The Court below allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the 1st respondent obtained divorce and she again married one Bhaskar and she is living with him and the 1st petitioner is looking after the welfare of the 2nd petitioner and therefore, the 1st respondent has no right to knock away the amounts of Venkataramana and she is not a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the claim of the 1st respondent is that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Venkataramana and the 2nd petitioner is under her care. The questions as to whether the 1st respondent is entitled to get the amounts of Venkatarama and whether the 2nd petitioner is under the care of 1st respondent or not, are all the factual aspects, which can be decided after full fledged trial, but not at this stage of the proceedings. Mere adding of the 1st respondent as party to the proceedings does not cause any prejudice and further, it is very helpful for better adjudication of the matter. In the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order under revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana Date:15th July, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2300 OF 2011 15.7.2011 Nn