THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5794 of 2009 Dated: 25-11-2011 Oral Order: Heard Smt Anjana Devi Satyanarayana for the revision petitioner, Sri DVS Sitarama Raju for the 10th respondent and Sri Koka Srinivasa Kumar for respondents 11 and 12. This revision is directed against the order dated 9-9-2009 by the Court below rejecting I.A.No. 760 of 2009 filed by the revision petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead him as 8th defendant in the suit filed by respondents 1 to 8 herein for partition of the suit schedule property arraying respondents 9 to 15 herein as defendants therein. The petitioner claimed to be the widow of Kotana Yerraiah who is claimed to be the brother of the 1st plaintiff Kotana Vemanna who is represented by his legal heirs plaintiffs 2 to 8 in the suit. In support of her claim to being the wife of late Yerraiah she furnished a certified copy of O.P.No. 98 of 1991 instituted by her before the I-Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. In the cause title of the suit, she described herself as wife of late Kotana Yerraiah. The said O.P. was dismissed on 19-1-1993 for reasons not germane to the present lis. The Court below in rejecting the application I.A.No. 760 of 2009 rightly observed that O.P.No. 98 of 1991 was not probative material to infer the correctness of the revision petitioner’s claim to being the widow of Yerraiah, merely on account of her own description as being the wife of Yerraiah in the cause title in O.P.No. 98 of 1991. In this revision, the petitioner placed on record a Xerox copy of a service certificate dated 30-11-2006 issued by the East Coast Railways, wherein she is described as the wife of late Yerraiah. The petitioner claims to have worked in the Railways as an employee in the Divisional Railway Manager’s office. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that this service certificate could not be placed before the Court below and she will place the same at the relevant time. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, the revision is disposed of setting aside the order of the Court below dismissing I.A.No. 760 of 2009 and remanding the matter to the Court below for consideration afresh after taking into consideration the service certificate dated 30-11-2006 claimed to have been issued by the East Coast Railways; provided the petitioner produces the original of the service certificate for the perusal of the Court below, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the certificate being produced, the Court may pass a fresh order on I.A.No. 760 of 2009 in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks thereafter. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 25th November, 2011. GRR