G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in both the revision petitions is: when an application filed by one person for being impleaded as legal representative of a deceased party to a litigation is allowed, is it competent for the Court to allow an application filed for the same purpose subsequently by another person?

( 2 ) IT is necessary to state a few facts for the purpose of disposal of these two civil revision petitions. During the pendency of an appeal A. S. No. 121 of 1986 on the file of the Second Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, the first appellant therein died. On an application being filed by the revision petitioner herein, he was ordered to be impleaded as third appellant to the appeal. Subsequently, the first respondent herein filed two applications one for setting aside the order of abatement caused by the death of the first appellant and the other for impleading her as his legal representative, claiming herself to be his daughter born to him through his first wife. The court below, after hearing both parties, allowed the petitions.

( 3 ) IN any view, the mere fact that an application for being impleaded as a legal representative is ordered does not prevent another application being filed subsequently by another legal representative for the same purpose. The first respondent filed the application claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased first appellant, beinghis daughter born through his first wife. At times persons not being aware of the pendency of proceedings before Court may not approach for being impleaded as legal representa lives when a party dies during the pendency of the proceedings. In this case the party sought to be impleaded clearly averred in the petition for impleading that she was not aware of the pendency of the litigation pending in the Court. In view of this averment, she is quite justified in making the request for being recorded as a legal representative of the deceased first appellant. What all the Court has to do is whether the person sought to be impleaded is interested in the litigation. Being the daughter of the first appellant, the first respondent herein can be said to be a person interested. Order 22 Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code reads thus:"where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court". In the counter filed by the revision petitioner to the petition filed by the first respondent, the averment made therein as regards her being the daughter of the deceased first appellant and her not being aware of the pendency of the proceedings in the Court are denied. At this stage those issues cannot be adjudicated upon. The same will have to be gone into after evidence is adduced by both the parties. The impugned order is as under:-"i As. 380 / 91, 381 / 91 and 382 / 91 are allowed. Heard. Both sides have represented that this petition may be allawed. This petition is allowed. "the learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to satisfy me, by citing any authority, that the fact that an application for being impleaded as a legal representative to a deceased party to a litigation is allowed is a bar for filing of another application for the same purpose by another party. In those circumstances, I do not see any justification to interfere with the order under revision.

( 4 ) IN the result, the Civil Revision Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document