HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.4929 of 2010 and 1860 of 2011 Date: September 2, 2011 Between: I.Venkat Rao (died) per LR I.Kamasastry, S/o.late I.Venkat Rao, aged 61 years, R/o.JPN Road, Warangal … Petitioners And Y.Aravind, S/o.Y.V.Krishna Rao, Aged 52 years, Occ:legal practitioner, R/o.JPN Road, Warangal … Respondent Common order: These revision petitions are filed aggrieved of the orders dated 06.09.2010 passed in I.A.Nos.1051 and 1072 of 2010 respectively in the very same suit – O.S.No.651 of 1993, by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal; as such they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. The aforesaid suit was filed by one Sri I.Venkat Rao, the sole plaintiff, for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit wall and also mandatory injunction for construction of demolished wall. On 03.06.2009, Sri I.Venkat Rao, died; as such, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.896 of 2009 under Order XXII Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to permit him to come on record as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to prosecute the case on the ground that the plaintiff died on 30.06.2009 leaving behind him (the petitioner herein), three daughters, namely, Ramasita Murthy, Dr.Kalavathy Ayyagari, Radha Vinnakota, and also the children, of the predeceased daughter, i.e. Pramod Vadlamani and Sudhira Vadlamani. In the said I.A., it was pleaded that all other heirs relinquished their right in favour of the petitioner herein with regard to the suit schedule house bearing No.8-12-45 to 8-12-52 and have also executed General Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2009. The said application-I.A.No.896 of 2009 was allowed by the Court below on 23.04.2010. In view of the claim of the petitioner herein that all other legal representatives of the original plaintiff have relinquished their right in his favour, further issues, i.e. issue nos.7 and 8, were framed, which read as under: “Whether, the 2nd plaintiff alone is having right to continue the suit as L.R. of the deceased 1st plaintiff? Whether, the suit is bad for non-joinder of other issues of deceased 1st plaintiff.” The petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.1051 of 2010 seeking to strike down the aforesaid additional issues, framed on 02.07.2010. In view of the claim of the petitioner that all other legal representatives have settled the property in his favour in the oral settlement dated 12.06.2009, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.1072 of 2010 to frame an additional issue, i.e. issue no.9, which reads as under: “Whether, the settlement dated 12.06.2009 made by the daughters and children and predeceased daughter of the deceased No.1 plaintiff is true, valid and binding?” The Court below, by the impugned orders, dismissed I.A.No.1051 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and allowed I.A.No.1072 of 2010 filed by the respondent, which gave rise to filing of the present revision petitions. It is contended by Sri Bankatlal Mandhani learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as I.A.No.1896 of 2009 filed by the petitioner is already allowed and additional issues, namely, issue nos.7 & 8 are framed, it is not necessary to prove the oral settlement dated 12.06.2009. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Chhabil Das v. Pappu[1], Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust[2] and Dashrath Rao Kate v. Brij Mohan Srivastava[3]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Sri K.Subba Rao submits that in view of the plea of the petitioner that the property in question was settled in his favour by other legal representatives by oral settlement dated 12.06.2009 there is no reason in seeking to strike down issue nos.7 & 8 and to oppose framing of issue no.9. He further submits that, in any event, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner herein by the impugned orders so as to seek intervention of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this case, it is to be noticed that the suit was originally filed by Sri I.Venkat Rao, the sole plaintiff. He died on 03.06.2009, leaving behind three daughters, children of the predeceased daughter and the petitioner herein, who is his only son, as legal representatives. In normal course, all the legal representatives are to be brought on record, but when the petitioner is relying on oral settlement dated 12.06.2009, on the basis of which he is claiming the property in question, he has to prove such settlement. I have perused issue nos.7 & 8. Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that issue nos.7 & 8 have been framed correctly and there is no reason to strike down such issues and further this Court finds no illegality in framing an additional issue, i.e. issue no.9 in view of the plea of the petitioner that there is an oral settlement dated 11.06.2009, comprising relinquishment of rights over the property in question in his favour by other legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. I have also perused the judgments (1 to 3 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but having regard to the limited scope of the interlocutory orders passed by the Court below; at this stage, the said judgments would not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner in support his plea. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Court below, so as to revise the same in these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. ______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 2, 2011 MRR [1] (2006) 12 SCC 41 [2] (2008) 8 SCC 521 [3] AIR 2010 SC 897