THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P. No.3207 of 2010 Date: 09.12.2011 Between: Batchu Venkata Krishnaiah … Petitioner AND 1. Lingamaneni Nagendramma (died), 2. Lingamaneni Veera Raghavaiah … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P. No.3207 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the judgment debtor. A decree was passed against the petitioner by the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda in O.S.No.82 of 2002. The first respondent was the decree holder therein. It was a suit for recovery of money on the foot of a pro-note as well as for foreclosure of an equitable mortgage. 2. The son of the first plaintiff, who is the second respondent herein, later filed a petition in I.A.No.328 of 2008 seeking for passing of a final decree. Through the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant preferred the present revision. 3. The second respondent claimed in the final decree petition that his mother executed a Will in his favour and that he alone, therefore, is entitled to seek for final decree. Sri V.V.L.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that the second respondent should follow the procedure contemplated by Order XXII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC, for short) and only after considering his position and recognizing his right, the second respondent can proceed to seek a final decree. He also contended that the final decree proceedings were not maintainable without succession certificate and that all the legal representatives of the first respondent ought to be brought on record as the representatives of the plaintiff in the final decree proceedings. 4. He placed reliance upon Valluri Sambasiva Rao v. Motamarri veeraiah Gupta (died) by LRs.[1] in support of his contention. In that case, the plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree. Thereafter, he breathed his last. The court held that the legal representative of the original plaintiff could come on record through a petition under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and that the preliminary decree would not stand abated. The learned counsel for the defendant fairly conceded that the preliminary decree would not stand abated. He, however, contended that final decree proceedings can be initiated by the second respondent after his recognition by the Court in a petition under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. 5. Order XXII Rule 10 CPC envisages that in case of assigning interest in the subject matter of the case, the assignee can come on record with the leave of the Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that the second respondent becomes the owner of the property by virtue of the Will and that he at best can come on record with due permission of the Court under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. Admittedly, the second respondent did not obtain such permission before he filed the petition in I.A.No.328 of 2008. 6. Be that as it may, Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the plaintiff/second respondent placed reliance upon Section 99 CPC and contended that the decree cannot be reversed on the ground of any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit. His main thrust, however is that the revision is not maintainable u/s.115 CPC. He placed reliance upon Section 115 (2) CPC, which envisages that no revision would lie where an appeal lies from an order of the Court. A final decree is a decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2) CPC and as such the same is appealable, in view of Section 96 CPC. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that where the impugned order is a final decree, the orders therein are appeable and that revision would not lie. He raised other contentions regarding the merits of the case. 7. However, I do not consider it appropriate to go into the merits of the revision, as raised by the learned counsel for the second respondent where I agree with his contention that the revision is not maintainable, in view of Section 115 (2) CPC where an appeal would lie. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this revision directing the revision petitioner/defendant to approach the appropriate Court by way of an appeal. I also deem it appropriate to accord some time to the revision petitioner to move the appeal. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of holding that the revision is not maintainable. The revision petitioner is granted time till 21.01.2012 to move an appeal before the appropriate forum. Needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to take up all grounds urged by him in the appeal. The disposal of the case is tantamount to vacation of the stay automatically. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. _________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 09.12.2011 Isn [1] 2003 (3) ALD 585