HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P. No.5062 of 2008 Dated 26-08-2010 Between: Korthiwada Ashok and another. ……..Petitioners Vs. Yerra Balanarsu (died) and others. ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P. No.5062 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are the appellants in A.S.No.45 of 2008 who invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to assail the correctness of the order passed in I.A.No.322 of 2008 in A.S.No.45 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Siddipet, purported to have been filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, whereunder, the learned District Judge while allowing amendment to cause title of the appeal, disallowed the amendment for exemption to bring the legal heirs of the 1st respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, are that initially, petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 1997 for comprehensive relief of declaration and injunction and after regular trial, the suit was dismissed. Against that judgment, the petitioners filed a regular appeal in A.S.No.45 of 2008 and the same was pending. The 1st respondent who was D-1 in the suit, died during pendency of the suit itself. While filing the appeal, this fact was not carried forward by the petitioners in the cause title of the appeal. Therefore, it necessitated the petitioners to file the present application; one for amending the cause title of the appeal to add the word “died” in the brackets against the name of the 1st respondent and for the other relief that was prayed by the petitioners was that in view of the exemption granted by the trial Court on 31-03-2006 giving exemption to the petitioners from bring the legal representatives of the deceased-1st respondent on record, and the petitioners wanted to incorporate the same by amending the cause title. The petitioners contended that in view of the said exemption granted to them, such legal representatives need not be brought on record and hence, sought for exemption. However, the second relief was negatived by the trial Court taking into account the lapses on the part of the petitioners holding that while filing the appeal, petitioners have not mentioned the fact that the 1st respsondent died, which is a bona fide mistake. Hence, the revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material. 4. It appears that the appeal filed against the dismissal of suit is still pending consideration on the file of the lower appellate Court. No doubt, D-1 appears to have died during pendency of the suit. This fact could not be effected by the petitioners in the cause title of the appeal, however, the Legal Representatives of R-1, i.e. R-2 to R-7 were already brought on record, though the exemption was granted in the trial Court as per the orders dated 31-03-2006. Be that as it may, since Legal Representatives are already existing on record and defence has already been disclosed by respondent No.1 in his written statement in the suit, there is absolutely no necessity as such for the respondents to plea any further defecne and seek any fresh orders. Further, since the L.Rs. of the 1st respondent could not possibly take any new plea or go contrary to the plea which has been already taken by the deceased, necessarily they have to stand by the defence which was already taken by the deceased alone. 5. In that view of the matter, the main appeal itself can be disposed of on merits since no new relief need be sought for in this appeal again and the appeal is filed only on continuation of the original proceedings. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The orders in I.A.No.322 of 2008 in A.S.No.45 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Siddipet, to the extent of rejection of amendment for exemption to bring the legal representatives of the 1st respondent is set aside. The lower appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law. No costs. __________________ 26th August 2010 KVR