HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3217 OF 2009 DATE:15-07-2011 BETWEEN Remalla Madhu …Petitioner AND Pilla Santha Kumari and another …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3217 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is a third party to the proceedings in A.S.No.145 of 2005 instituted by the defendant against the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.936 of 2003 which was filed by the plaintiff-first respondent herein for partition of the suit schedule property. Pending the appeal, upon the death of the appellant-defendant, petitioner herein filed impugned I.A.No.772 of 2007 to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased appellant stating that the appellant executed a registered will on 1.7.2005 vide document No.3280/2005 bequeathing the suit schedule property in his favour and later she died on 22.9.2005. The lower Court dismissed the impugned I.A. on 23.6.2009 stating that since the petitioner is claiming to be the legatee by virtue of the will, unless the will is proved in the manner prescribed, he cannot be impleaded as legal heir of deceased appellant. Questioning the same the present revision is filed. From the material brought on record, it is to be seen that the petitioner claiming to be the legatee under the alleged Will filed O.S.No.20 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for declaration and possession of the suit schedule property by impleading the plaintiff in the present suit as a defendant. Entire evidence in the said suit, on either side was completed and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the revision petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3607 of 2007 against the orders in transfer O.P.No.2745 of 2007. This Court by order dated 18.4.2008 allowed the revision and transferred O.S.No.20 of 2006 from the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada to the Court of V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada to be tried and disposed of along with A.S.No.145 of 2005. It is now represented that on such transfer, O.S.No.20 of 2006 is re-numbered as O.S.No.142 of 2008. Under those circumstances, the lower Court is not justified in dismissing the impugned I.A. on the ground that unless the petitioner proves the will in the manner prescribed, he cannot claim as a legal heir of deceased appellant. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the lower Court is set aside and I.A.No.772 of 2007 is allowed. The lower Court is directed to decide A.S.No.145 of 2005 along with O.S.No.142 of 2008 as directed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3607 of 2007. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 15, 2011 Tsr.