THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.3031 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale executed by the father of the defendant viz., Anjaiah. The defendant is Sambasiva Rao. In the said suit, a written statement was filed stating that the said executant Anjaiah died intestate leaving behind his daughter by name Adde Venkayamma, who is the sister of the defendant and also the son, the defendant. Though it was stated in the written statement that Anjaiah died intestate leaving behind his son, the defendant and his daughter Adde Venkayamma, the petitioner could not trace out the address of Adde Venkayamma and after getting the address, the petitioner filed I.A.No.122 of 2010 seeking to implead the 2nd respondent Adde Venkayamma as defendant no.2, who is also one of the legal heir of late Anjaiah and for the consequential amendment of the plaint. The court below, vide its order, dated 26-04-2010, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present application is filed. It is true that the petitioner ought to have filed the said application immediately after filing of the written statement. The court below dismissed the said application only on the ground that the said petition ought to have been filed within the time and to fill up the lacunas the said application was filed and, therefore, it is not maintainable. Though there are lapses and lacunas on the part of the petitioner in filing the said application to implead the proposed 2nd defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, I am of the opinion that merely because one of the defendants was not impleaded immediately after it came to the notice of the plaintiff about the fact that the proposed 2nd defendant is also one of the legal heir, as the suit was already filed and pending against the son of the deceased, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. Further, the suit cannot be dismissed on the technical grounds on the alleged lapses and the court below ought to have allowed the said application on certain terms. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the counsel appearing for the respondents in this Court within two weeks from today. On filing the proof of payment, the order copy be despatched. __________ 12-08-2011 Prv