THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.5438 of 2009 ORDER: O.S.No.7 of 2001 was filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, by the respondent, against one, Sri Mangilal (defendant No.2) and others, for recovery of certain amount. Mangilal died during the pendency of the suit. The legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 5 to 12. The petitioner herein, one of the sons of Mangilal, figured as defendant No.7. The suit was decreed, and after the decree became final, the respondent filed E.P.No.54 of 2008. The petitioner filed E.A.No.172 of 2008, under Section 47 of C.P.C., with a prayer to declare that the decree in the suit is non est, void ab initio, and inexecutable against defendants 5 to 12 in the suit. The ground urged by him was that, except bringing the legal representatives of Mangilal on record, the respondent did not amend the plaint, and no claim as such was made against defendants 5 to 12. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the E.A., through order dated 17-09-2009. Hence this revision. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant in the suit were brought on record, the plaint was not amended, to sustain any plea, individually, against them. According to him, the cause of action for the respondent, against the 2nd defendant, was personal in nature, and unless any specific facts are pleaded, vis-à-vis the legal representatives, the decree, even if passed, is not binding upon them. On the death of the 2nd defendant in the suit, the respondent filed an application to bring the legal representatives on record. The application was strongly opposed by the petitioner herein, who was one of the proposed defendants. The trial Court allowed the I.A. The petitioner and other legal representatives filed C.R.P.No.2690 of 2007, disowning their liability. The C.R.P. was dismissed by this Court, on 31-07-2007. The suit was decreed thereafter. In the present E.A., the order of this Court in the C.R.P., was marked as Ex.B-1. Once the petitioner and other legal heirs were brought on record, it was open to them to contest the suit, by raising every possible plea. In fact, they are deemed to have raised all the defences. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the decree, he could have filed an appeal, being a party to it. Having permitted the decree to become final, he is not entitled to file application under Section 47 of C.P.C. The trial Court took note of the relevant facts, while dismissing the application. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.14-12-2010. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO