HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3415 OF 2011 DATE:02-09-2011 BETWEEN Yalamanchili Venkata Rama Chandra Rao And another …Petitioners AND Donepudi Ravi Chowdari and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3415 OF 2011 ORDER: One Yalamanchili Lakshmaiah-father of the petitioners herein laid a suit in O.S.No.232 of 1990 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for appointment of an arbitrator with a direction to file an award after conducting arbitration proceedings and with further direction for settlement of accounts as per the arbitration clause. On dismissal of the suit for default on 5.4.1999, plaintiff filed I.A.No.622 of 1999 to set aside the dismissal order and for restoration of the suit. During pendency of the said petition, plaintiff died on 17.4.2002. Therefore, petitioners herein being his sons filed I.A.No.978 of 2002 seeking permission of the Court to come on record as legal representatives of the petitioner (plaintiff) in I.A.No.622 of 1999, which was allowed on 27.2.204, but as the petitioners failed to carry out the amendment in I.A.No.622 of 1999 by adding them as petitioners, the said I.A. was dismissed on 17.1.2005. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners herein carried the matter in C.M.A.No.3 of 2005 and the same was also dismissed on 19.9.2005 by V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Aggrieved by that, petitioners herein carried the matter by way of revision in C.R.P.No.325 of 2007. The said revision was allowed on 7.9.2007, in effect, allowing the application filed by the petitioners herein i.e. I.A.No.978 of 2002 in I.A.No.622 of 1999 and that I.A.No.622 of 1999 was also stood allowed. On restoration of the suit, admittedly, petitioners herein have not taken any steps to file an application to set aside the abatement caused in the suit or to bring the petitioners as legal representatives in the suit, but they straightaway filed the impugned I.A.No.466 of 2011 to permit them to carry out the amendment to the plaint. On dismissal of the same by the impugned order, the present revision is filed. In the present case, petitioners instead of filing an application to come on record as plaintiffs 2 and 3 in place of their father-original plaintiff, they stated in the affidavit filed in support of impugned I.A. that inadvertently, they have not carried out the amendment to the original plaint by virtue of the orders passed in I.A.No.978 of 2002 dated 27.2.2004, allowing the said application which was filed seeking amendment of the plaint. The said contention of the petitioners is factually incorrect. Pending I.A.No.978 of 2002, first respondent died and to the said effect a memo was filed by the counsel on 27.11.2002, in which, the petitioners herein filed an application to bring the legal representatives of deceased first respondent as respondents 4 to 6 on 6.1.2003. Whereas I.A.No.978 of 2002 was filed by the petitioners herein to implead them as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner (plaintiff) in I.A.No.622 of 1999. On their impleadment in the said I.A. and in view of allowing revision in C.R.P.No.325 of 2007, I.A.No.622 of 1999 filed by the petitioners’ father was allowed for restoration of the suit to its file to the stage when it was dismissed for default. On restoring the suit, it is incumbent upon the petitioners herein to come on record as plaintiffs in the suit by filing an independent application and with further application to set aside the abatement caused, if any, and to condone the delay in filing the abatement petition, if any. Without taking any such steps, the petitioners cannot simply seek to carry out the amendment to the plaint. Further petitioners herein filed another application in I.A.No.967 of 2010 seeking permission to file amended plaint and when the Court below pointed out as to how the question of receiving amended plaint does arise without there being amendment carried out to the plaint, the said application was not pressed and the impugned I.A. came to be filed for carrying out the amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. In the absence of any applications filed namely, to bring the petitioners as plaintiffs being the legal representatives of the original plaintiff in the suit, the impugned I.A. itself cannot be entertained. The lower Court rightly dismissed the impugned I.A. which does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 02, 2011 Tsr.