THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.2345 of 2010 ORDER: Smt. Archana Jaiswal, the deceased sole plaintiff, filed O.S.No.488 of 1998, under Order XXII Rule, 4 C.P.C., in the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against respondents 3 to 17 herein, for partition of the suit schedule property. She died during the pendency of the suit, and her legal representatives, respondents 1 and 2 came on record. The 5th defendant in the suit, by name, Anil Kumar Jaiswal, died on 29-11-2009. Respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.2 of 2010 with a prayer to add the petitioners herein as well as respondents 18 to 22, as legal representatives of the deceased 5th respondent. The petitioners herein, who are proposed to be brought on record as defendants 21 to 25, raised an objection for the inclusion of respondents 18 to 22, as the proposed defendants 16 to 20. The trial Court allowed the I.A., as prayed for. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned counsel for the contesting respondents. On the death of the 5th defendant in the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 C.P.C., to bring the legal representatives on record. The plaintiffs were of the view that the deceased-5th defendant had two wives, i.e. the 1st petitioner herein and the 18th respondent. While petitioners 2 to 5 are the children of the 1st petitioner, respondents 19 to 22 are the children of the 18th respondent. The trial Court did not take the disputes as between the proposed legal representatives into account, and allowed the I.A. The grievance of the petitioners is about the addition of respondents 18 to 22, as defendants 16 to 20, as legal representatives. The limited purpose for which the application was filed was to ensure that the estate of the deceased, 5th defendant, is represented. Though in some cases, it would become necessary to resolve the disputes as between the legal representatives at the initial stage itself, in a suit for partition, the necessity to undertake such a detailed examination, in respect of the legal representatives of a deceased- defendant, is not necessary at the initial stage. As a matter of fact, such a dispute can be the subject-matter of the suit itself. In case an issue is framed on this, the petitioners, on the one hand, and respondents 18 to 22 on the other hand, can adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions, and the trial Court can record the contentions. Since the suit is filed for the relief of partition, even if one, as between the 1st petitioner and the 18th respondent are treated as legally wedded wives of the deceased 5th defendant, the entitlement of their children for being allotted shares in the event of it being held that they are the children of the 5th defendant; would also fall for consideration. Hence, the C.R.P is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to raise their contentions in this regard, in the suit itself. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 16-08-2010. KO