IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2084 of 2008 Between: Movva Anjamma (died) and another .. Petitioners AND M.V. Seetha Rama Rao and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy in I.A.No.8 of 2008 in O.S.No.133 of 1992 on 13-03-2008. The petition was filed by the present revision petitioner, who came on record as the legal representative of his deceased mother in the suit to determine the vakalat of Sri N.V.S.R. Gopala Krishnama Charyulu and Sri P. Dasaradha Reddy, advocates, as advocates for the plaintiffs, on the ground that the said advocates appeared for the father and mother of the revision petitioner in earlier litigations. The 2nd plaintiff opposed the request on the ground that the legal representative of the 1st defendant cannot be permitted to raise the issue of the competence of the advocate to represent the plaintiffs at a belated stage and the subject matter of O.S.No.128 of 1981 and the present suit are totally different thus not disabling Sri P. Dasaradha Reddy from appearing for the plaintiffs. The trial Court rendered the impugned order opining that the legal representative cannot be expected to take any new plea or new ground not taken by the deceased defendant. The 1st defendant was noted to have not raised any objection for 11 years from 1992, the year of the suit, to 2003, the year of the death, against the appearance of both the counsel for the plaintiffs. The trial Court also noted that while Sri N.V.S.R. Gopala Krishnma Charyulu appeared for the father of the revision petitioner in criminal proceedings, Sri P. Dasaradha Reddy, advocate appeared for the mother of the revision petitioner in O.S.No.128 of 1981 in respect of a different subject matter. Referring to the precedents cited before it, the trial Court opined that there is no material on record to show that the advocates are using the knowledge and information of the earlier case in the present case and there is no justification for entertaining any suspicion against the advocates. The petition was consequently dismissed without costs. The revision petitioner claims that there was failure of justice due to the rejection of his request and the mere silence of the 1st defendant due to her old age and ignorance cannot bar the legal representative from taking a legal and factual stand. The subject of the litigations is overlapping and therefore, the revision petitioner desired the order to be reversed. Sri M.M.M. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, stated in the first instance that Sri N.V.S.R. Gopala Krishnama Charyulu is no more and consequently, the Civil Revision Petition becomes infructuous insofar as the relief claimed against him. While the learned counsel reiterated the contentions about the other counsel, Sri P. Dasaradha Reddy, the factual conclusion of the trial Court that the subject matter of the two cases is different is not factually in dispute. The further fact is that the deceased 1st defendant, who was represented by Sri P. Dasaradha Reddy in the earlier suit O.S.No.128 of 1981, never objected to Sri P. Dasaradha Reddy again appearing for the plaintiffs in this suit during her life of 11 years since the filing of the suit in 1992. The deceased 1st defendant was represented by a counsel in the suit and when she was contesting the suit with the assistance of a competent legal advisor, her age and ignorance cannot be relied on as grounds for permitting the legal representative to raise an altogether new plea at this belated stage. As observed by the trial Court, the knowledge and information secured by Sri P. Dasaradha Reddy in O.S.No.128 of 1981 as the counsel for the 1st defendant were not shown in any manner to be relevant to the determination of the questions in controversy in the present suit and in the circumstances, the trial Court cannot be considered to have gone wrong in rejecting the request. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-06-2010 Ksn