HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 157 OF 2011 Friday, the twenty Eighth day of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Dhulipalla Vijaya Krishna Sarma Petitioner AND Adidam Venkata Krishna Rao and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner in I.A. No. 400 of 2010 in Succession O.P. No. 154 of 2008 aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2010 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District, dismissing the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead him as a Respondent No.8 in the O.P. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the respondents herein have filed the above O.P. for obtaining succession certificate in respect of the petition schedule amounts with an evil intention to grab the same, even though they are aware of the fact that the petitioner herein is the sole legatee under a Will dated 20.4.2033 executed by the testatrix Dhulipalla Rajya Lakshmamma, which is her last will. Whereas, it is the case of the first respondent that till 22.4.2003, till the date of the testatrix, she was under his care and, therefore, the alleged Will is forged one. It is stated that the petitioner herein is a stranger to the first respondent as well as the testatrix. The court below, by the order impugned has dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Admittedly, before the court below, the relationship of the petitioner with the testatrix is not spoken to by the petitioner. It is also not known how and in what consideration, the testatrix has executed the Will in favour of the petitioner. As observed by the court below, when a third party claims to be impleaded in any proceedings, it is necessary for such a party to place prima facie evidence in respect of the any document, on which reliance is sought to be placed. The petitioner ought to have filed a copy of the Will pursuant to the objection raised by the court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proof and evidence would be adduced on the Will at the time of enquiry is untenable. The objection of the court was only with regard to the production of a copy of the Will and not to prove it at the inception. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed January 28, 2011 MAS