( 1 ) ONE Smt. Balaga Bangaramma, second respondent herein died during the pendency of appeal in A. S. No. 7 of 1990 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, bobbili, who filed O. S. No. 143 of 968 for partition of the suit schedule property. The first respondent herein was the second defendant in the said suit along with certain other defendants who are not parties to the present revision petition. Admittedly, the suit was decreed. Thereafter, I. A. No. 1033 of 1975 was filed by the decreeholder for a final decree and the same was also allowed. Aggrieved by the said decree, the first respondent herein carried the matter in appeal in A. S. No. 54 of 1978 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge s Court, parvathipuram. It is pertinent to mention that subsequently, the appeal came to be transferred to the Court of the Subordinate judge, Bobbili and renumbered as A. S. No. 7 of 1990. It appears that the decreeholder died during the pendency of the first appeal. Thereafter, the sixth defendant herein i. e. , smt. Reddi Narayanamma @ China narayanamma filed I. A. No. 34 of 1983, wherein she claimed that she is the legatee of the deceased decree holder and in order to enforce the decree obtained by the deceased second respondent herein, the appeal is required to be dismissed on the ground it abated. In the said interlocutary application, the applicant never sought any relief that she should be brought on record in the appeal as the legal representative of the deceased decreeholder. Shortly thereafter another interiocutary application came to be filed in I. A. No. 67 of 1983 by the petitioner herein purporting to be one under order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure (for short cpc ) to implead her as a respondent to the appeal on the ground that she was the adopted daughter of the deceased decree-holder-Smt. Balaga bangaramma. By an order dated 28-7-1984 the appeal was dismissed as abated. It is a common order passed in the abovementioned interlocutary application and by virtue of the said order, I. A. No. 34 of 1983 was allowed and I. A. No. 67 of 1983 was dismissed so also dismissed A. S. No. 54 of 1978. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred three revision petitions viz. , C. R. P. Nos. 3104; 3105 and 3106 of 1984 to this Court. C. R. P. No. 3104 of 1984 was preferred against the order of dismissal of appeal on the ground of abatement. The other two revision petitions were directed against that part of the common order, by which, the other interlocutory applications were disposed of, as indicated above. This Court by common order dated 23-9-1986 in the revision petitions held as follows:"these revision petitions are against the orders dismissing the appeals on the ground that they abated. It is stated that the legal representatives of the 1st respondent in the appeal have not been brought on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Will executed by the 1st respondent is not genuine and the petitioner himself is the legal heir to the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the legal representatives should have been brought on record as the respondents are legatees and a petition also has been filed stating that the 1st respondent executed a Will. In view of these rival contentions, the appellate Court should have considered as to who are the legal representatives. The order of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the appellate Court is directed to consider as to who are the legal representatives of the 1st respondent i. e. , Balaga bangaramma. C. R. Ps. allowed. No costs. "

( 2 ) BY the date of the above mentioned order, all the proceedings pending by then before the Court of the learned Subordinate judge, Parvathipuram, stood transferred to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, bobbili. The abovementioned LA. No. 34 of 1983 and I. A. No. 67 of 1983 came to be renumbered as I. A. Nos. 181 of 1990 and 182 of 1990. However, by an