THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 4300 of 2008 Oral order: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 11.04.2008, passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the application in I.A. No. 173 of 2007 in O.S. No. 20 of 1993, filed by respondent No.3 herein under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying to implead him as plaintiff No.3 in the suit. The plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein filed the suit O.S. No. 20 of 1993 for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property against five defendants. The suit was decreed ex parte, and the said order, subsequently, vide orders dated 18.04.2006 passed in I.A. No. 429 of 2005 was set aside and the suit restored to file. At that point of time, respondent No.1 herein filed the present application in I.A. No. 173 of 2007 praying to implead him as plaintiff No.3. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 filed their counter. The Court below having considered the rival contentions, and considering the fact that ex parte decree was set aside, and despite that the Advocates for neither of the parties filed memo intimating mentioning about the death of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4, furnishing the details of their legal representatives, and as Mutawalli of plaintiff No.1 is no more and respondent No.1 herein intends to come on record and continue the suit proceedings in the capacity of President of Darga constituted by A.P. State Wakf Board, by reason of the order under revision, allowed the application, impleading respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff No.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.1 herein filed the present application praying to implead him as plaintiff No.3 without impleading the legal heirs of the three deceased-defendants, and as such, the order under revision, passed by the Court below, impleading respondent No.1 as plaintiff No.3 cannot be sustained. He further submitted that plaintiff No.1- Darga is situated in Sayedpally village, and respondent No.1 having been appointed Mutawalli of Burgupally Darga, cannot represent plaintiff No.1-Darga. Hence, he submitted that respondent No.1 has no locus to represent plaintiff No.1-Darga, much less get himself impleaded as plaintiff No.3 in the suit, and more so when the A.P. State Wakf Board, as plaintiff No.2 is contesting the suit. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision passed by the Court below impleading respondent No.1 herein as plaintiff No.3 be set aside and the C.R.P. be allowed. Despite taking out notice to respondent No. 1, who was impleaded as plaintiff No.3 as also respondent No.2-plaintiff No.1- Darga, through Court as well as Standing Counsel for A.P. State Wakf Board, none appeared on their behalf. As directed by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3-plaintiff No.2 produced the record, and a perusal of the same would disclose that respondent No.1 herein was appointed as President of plaintiff No.1-Darga. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 3-plaintiff No. 2 and perused the order under revision. When respondent No.1 herein filed the present application and when the order under revision was passed, the legal heirs of the three deceased-defendants were already brought on record in the suit. However, respondent No.1 without impleading the legal heirs of the three deceased-defendants has filed the present application. Since the order under revision has been passed without impleading the legal heirs of the three deceased-defendants and without notices to them, the same cannot be sustained. Hence, the order under revision is set aside and the C.R.P. is allowed with the following directions: Respondent No.1 herein, is at liberty to file fresh application seeking his impleadment as plaintiff No.3 by impleading the legal heirs of the deceased-defendants. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall issue notices to all concerned and pass appropriate orders. The petitioners are entitled to raise the objections, if any, which they are entitled to in law. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 3rd February, 2010 KSR