THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.3944, 3980, 3981, and 4072 of 2009 CRP (SR) No.21934/2009 and CRPMP No.6629/2009 CRP (SR) No. 21926/2009 and CRPMP No.5831/2009 Dt.15-10-2009 CRP NO.3944/2009 Kudupudi Venkata Lakshmi ..Petitioner V. 1. Bokka Nagamani @ Mani and others. ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.3944, 3980, 3981, and 4072 of 2009 CRP (SR) No.21934/2009 and CRPMP No.6629/2009 CRP (SR) No. 21926/2009 and CRPMP No.5831/2009 COMMON ORDER All these revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the parties in all the revision petitions are one and the same. The revision-petitioner herein and one B. Pakeeramma filed OS No.94/88 before the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram for the relief of declaration that the first plaintiff is the title holder of items 1 and 2 of the schedule mentioned property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction etc., Whereas the brother of the first plaintiff who is also defendant No.2 in OS No.94/88 filed OS No.144/88 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Amalapuram. It was subsequently transferred to the Senior Civil Judge’s court, Amalapuram, wherein it was numbered as OS No.88/91. In the suit OS No.94/88, Bokka Venkata Krishna Rao was shown as D-3 and he was added as a party defendant as per orders passed in IA No.875/93 dt.12-7-1996. During the pendency of the suit, D-3 died on 10-1-2003. To the said effect, a memo dt. 23-3-2003 was filed on 3-4-2003. Later the first respondent, Bokka Nagamani @ Mani claiming herself as the wife of D-3-Bokka Venkata Krishna Rao filed IA No.377/2008 in OS No.94/88 to condone the delay of 5 years 2 months and 20 days in filing petition, IA No.379/2008, to add her as legal representative of D-3; IA No.378/2008 to set aside the abatement of suit. The plaintiff in OS No.88/1991 died and the suit was dismissed as abated. In view of the same, Bokka Nagamani @ Mani filed IA No.382/2008 for setting aside the dismissal default order dt. 29-1-2008 passed in OS No.88/91 and IA No.385/2008 to transpose her as plaintiff or add as the second plaintiff on the death of her husband Bokka Venakata Rao. Since there is delay in filing restoration petition in IA No.382/2008, Bokka Nagamani @ Mani filed IA No.774/2008 in OS No.88/91 to condone the delay of 66 days in filing restoration petition in IA No.382/2008. The trial court by the impugned order dt. 17-1-2009 allowed IA No.377/2008 and condoned the delay of 5 years 2 months and 20 days. Consequent to allowing the delay condonation petition, the trial court also allowed IA Nos.378 and 379 of 2009 by separate orders dt. 17-1-2009. Against the orders passed in IA No.377/2008 dt. 17-1-2009, the revision petitioner filed CRP (SR) No. 21926/2009 with an application in CRPMP No.5831/2009 for condonation of delay of 90 days in preferring the revision. CRP No.3980/2009 is filed against the orders passed in IA No.378/2009. CRP No.3944/2009 is filed against the orders passed in IA No.379/2008. Further the trail court by order dt. 9-1-2009 allowed IA No.774/2008 in OS No.88/91 and condoned the delay of 66 days in filing restoration application (IA No.382/20008) on payment of costs of Rs.100/-. Against which, CRP (SR) No.21934/2009 is filed. Since there is a delay in preferring the CRP, CRPMP No.6629/2009 was filed to condone the delay of 99 days in filing the revision. Consequent to allowing IA No.774/2008, IA No.382/08 was allowed on 17-1-2009. Against which, CRP No.3981/2009 is filed. On allowing IA No.382/2008, IA No.385/2008 was allowed on the same day adding Bokka Nagamani @ Mani as second plaintiff. Questioning the same, CRP No.4072/2009 is filed. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in all the revision petitions strenuously contends that the trial court cannot implead Bokka Nagamani @ Mani stating that she is the legally wedded wife of Krishna Rao unless it is decided that she is the legally wedded wife of the Krishna Rao and she will have a right in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the trial court is not justified in allowing IA holding that whether she is the legally wedded wife or not can be decided only in the suit after elaborate enquiry and the same is liable to be set-aside. I do not see any force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Since she is claiming to be the legally wedded wife of Bokka Venkata Krishna Rao, whether she is entitled to a share in the partition or not as legally wedded wife can be gone into in the suit when full fledged trial takes place, in which they can lead evidence. It is well settled now revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India can be entertained only if the order allowed to stand will attain finality. If the trial court decides the issue whether she is legally wedded wife or not in the main suit, the revision petitioner will have an opportunity to contest her claim in the main suit and it cannot be said that the court gave a finding that she is legally wedded wife of Bokka Venkata Krishna Rao and entitled to a share. Further, the order can be capable of correction in appeal if ultimately filed when the suit is decided against the revision petitioner. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the trial court in allowing the above IAs does not call for any interference. All the revision petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. CRPMP Nos. 6629/2009 and No.5831/2009 are also dismissed. ------------------------ A.GOPAL REDDY,J DT.15-10-2009 kmr