THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2688 OF 2011 Dated: 26.07.2011 Between: Sirumala Neelakanteswara Reddy ..... Petitioner AND Bogolu Eswar Reddy and 2 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2688 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 30.03.2011, in I.A.No.2095 of 2010 in O.P.No.137 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, whereunder and whereby, the application filed, under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking the relief of counter claim in the written statement by adding Para 5-A, was dismissed on the ground that after closure of the evidence of both parties, the counter claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed O.P.No.137 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- consequent on the death of their daughter, Leelavathi, who died in a road accident on 21.08.2007. The petitioner herein is the husband of the deceased and as per the Hindu Succession Act, he is a Class-I legal heir of the deceased and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not the Class-I legal heirs of the deceased Leelavathi. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2095 of 2010 in O.P.No.137 of 2008 seeking the relief of counter claim in the written statement by adding Para 5-A. 3. Heard. 4. The O.P. was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 consequent upon the death of their daughter. In the said O.P., the petitioner i.e., the husband of the deceased filed a counter claim. Even though the Court below observed that as the counter claim was made by the petitioner, after the evidence of both parties was closed and so, the counter claim, is not maintainable, at the same time, such order cannot preclude the petitioner in claiming a share in the compensation, if any, that may be granted by the Tribunal in accordance with law. If the petitioner proves that he is legal heir and dependant of the deceased, Leelavathi, then he is entitled to a share in the compensation. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with an observation that the order under challenge does not preclude the petitioner in claiming a share in the compensation that may be awarded by the Tribunal, provided he is a dependant and legal heir of the deceased Leelavathi. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J Dated: 26th July, 2011 Ivd THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2688 OF 2011 26th July, 2011 Ivd