IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2703 of 2010 Between: S. Sideshwar Rao and 58 others ..Petitioners AND Neeli Narayana and others .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.114 of 2007 filed I.A.No.1569 of 2009 before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy to bring on record one N. Ambaiah and another Mrs. Shivamma as legal representatives of Neeli Narayana, who is the 1st defendant in the suit. However, the prayer in the petition under Order XXII Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not specify as which defendants these two proposed legal representatives should be impleaded. The affidavit in support of the petition stated that “if the Hon'ble Court not impleaded has proposed plaintiff Nos. 2 to 59, we will be put to irreparable loss and great injury”. Again it is stated in the affidavit that these two persons should be brought on record as the legal heirs and representatives of Neeli Narayana. The request was resisted by the 2nd defendant in the suit contending that the proposed parties cannot be impleaded as plaintiffs as prayed for in the petition. The learned District Judge in the impugned order noted that the date of death of Neeli Narayana was not given and any proof of relationship of the proposed legal representatives was also not filed. The learned District Judge also doubted whether there is involvement of any abatement and in any view he felt that the proposed parties cannot be impleaded as Plaintiffs 60 to 62. The plaintiffs approached this Court with this revision contending that the proposed legal representatives had to be impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 and I.A.No.949 of 2009 was in fact filed by some other persons (three of them) to be impleaded as plaintiffs on the ground of purchase of plots in the suit property. I.A.No.949 of 2009 is still pending and I.A.No.1569 of 2009 is not for impleadment of proposed respondents 60 to 62 as opined by the learned District Judge. Hence, the revision petitioners desired the impugned order to be reversed. No notice of the revision is being ordered to the respondents as the impugned order is not being interfered with in this revision and as the further liberty given to the revision petitioners will be of no prejudice to the rights and interests of the respondents. Irrespective of the fact that I.A.No.949 of 2009 was filed by three third parties to be impleaded as Plaintiff Nos.60 to 62 and I.A.No.1569 of 2009 was filed by the original Plaintiffs 1 to 59 to implead two legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant, the fact remains that the affidavit in support of I.A.No.1569 of 2009 was patently confusing. While no relief to add proposed Plaintiffs 60 to 62 was sought for in I.A.No.1569 of 2009 as misunderstood by the learned Principal District Judge, the other observations about the absence of date of death of Neeli Narayana, the 1st defendant, the absence of mention of relationship of the proposed two legal representatives with Neeli Narayana and the absence of any specification as to whether any abatement and delay have to be set aside cannot be considered to be incorrect in the light of the affidavit in support of the petition in I.A.No.1569 of 2009 being silent in this respect. Therefore, the dismissal of the petition I.A.No.1569 of 2009 by the trial Court cannot be found fault with. But, in the interests of justice, it should be made clear that Plaintiffs 1 to 59 will be at liberty to take steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant on record by filing appropriate applications to bring them on record and also if necessary to set aside the abatement and/or to condone the delay in filing the petitions to set aside the abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives. With such liberty to the revision petitioners to take appropriate steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant on record in the suit, which should be considered by the trial Court on merits in accordance with law, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 09-07-2010 Ksn