( 1 ) THE Second Appeal and the Civil revision Petition are filed by one Sapuram pedda Reddenna Chetty. He filed a suit being O. S. No. 132 of 1990 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 under a pronote executed by one Hussain Saheb. The suit filed against the legal representatives and his elder brother was dismissed by the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, madanapalli. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred first appeal being A. S. No. 132 of 1990. At that stage, defendants 1 to 4 filed interlocutory application being I. A. No. 755 of 1995 under Order 1 Rule 9 read with order 41 Rule 33 and Sections 144 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "cpc" ). The learned Additional District judge, allowed I. A. No. 755 of 1995 and on that ground dismissed A. S. No. 130 of 1990. Aggrieved by the order dated 27-8-1996 in i. A. No. 755 of 1995, Sapuram Pedda reddenna Chetty (hereinafter called the plaintiff) filed C. R. P. No. 499 of 1997 and aggrieved by the consequential order dated 27-8-1996 in A. S. No. 130 of 1990 dismissing the appeal, the plaintiff filed S. A. No. 30 of 1998. Therefore, both matters are being disposed of by this common order by referring to the parties as they are arrayed in suit.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows: the plaintiff filed a suit against the wife and four daughters of one Hussain Saheb alleging that Hussain Saheb executed a promissory note for Rs. 10,000. 00 and obtained a loan for his family necessities. To the said suit being O. S. No. 18 of 1983, the elder brother of late Hussain Saheb viz. , imam Saheb was also added as defendant no. 9. The sons of the daughter of Hussain saheb through his first wife were also added as defendants 6 to 8. In the plaint, it was alleged by the plaintiff that Hussain saheb died on 19-3-1980 leaving behind defendants 1 to 8, that the property left behind by late Hussain Saheb is now in possession of the defendants who are liable to pay the debt and prayed for a decree against the estate of the deceased Hussain saheb in the hands of the defendants and also for subsequent interest. Defendants 1 to 4 filed written statements demurring the claim. They specifically denied any right or interest in the estate of late Hussain Saheb as vesting in defendant No. 9, the elder brother of late Hussain Saheb. They also denied the execution of pronote by late hussain Saheb. Therefore, having regard to the pleadings in the written statement that defendant No. 9 has no manner of concern to the estate of Hussain Saheb, the trial court rightly framed the following issues:" (1) Whether the suit pronote dated 5-1-1980 is true valid and binding one. If so, to what extent defendants 1 to 4 are liable to pay? (2) Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is liable to be scaled down under Act IV of 1938? (3) To what relief?"

( 3 ) AFTER conducting the trial in which p. Ws. 1, 2 and D. W. 1 were examined and exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked by the plaintiff, on issue No. 1, the trial Court recorded the finding that defendants 1 to 4 are not liable to repay the pronote debt.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff preferred A. S. No. 132 of 1990. At the preliminary stage of filing the appeal, he filed an affidavit seeking exemption from payment of requisite fee for issuance of notice to the defendants who remained ex parte i. e. , defendants 5 to 8. Be it noted that, though Imam Saheb was served with suit summons, he remained ex parte and during the pendency of trial, he died and the plaintiff did not take any steps either to implead the legal representatives of Imam Saheb at the stage of trial or while filing A. S. No. 132 of 1990. Taking advantage of this, the respondents filed i. A. No. 755 of 1995 praying the appellate court to reject the first appeal as not maintainable for non-joinder of the legal representatives of Imam Saheb. The appellate Court came to the conclusion that even if the defendant remained ex parte