Heard both the counsel.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 05-08-2003 made in I.A.No.847 of 2002 in I.A.No.380 of 1996 in O.S.No.160 of 1985 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

3. The application was filed under Order XXII Rule4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as Code for the purpose of convenience) to register the final decree passed in I.A.No.380 of 1996 on the engrossed non-judicial stamp papers already furnished, in the name of the petitioners 1 to 3, in the place of their grand-mother by name Angara Seeta Mahalakshmamma, who died on 16-01-2002, who was the 1st respondent in I.A.No.380 of 1996 filed for final decree and who was 1st defendant in the suit O.S.No.160 of 1985, on the ground that she executed a Will in their favour on 27-08-1993.

4. The said application was resisted. The leaned Junior Civil Judge after recording reasons ultimately dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. Sri P. Ram Chandra Prasad, learned counsel representing the petitioners would submit that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Shankar Balwant Lokhande (dead) by L.Rs. v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande and another1 inasmuch as engrossing on the stamp paper of required value had not been complied with, it cannot be said that the final decree was passed and in view of the same the petitioners can be permitted to come on record.

6. On the contrary Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that inasmuch as the Court became functous officio at this stage, these parties claiming to be the legatees under a Will cannot come on record, even otherwise, unless the Will in question said to have been executed by Angara Seetha Mahalakshmamma is duly proved in accordance with law, these parties cannot be permitted to come on record to be substituted or added in the final decree.

7. The facts are not in serious controversy between the parties. The revision petitioners are relying upon a Will, dated 27-08-1993 and intend to come on record in the place of their grand mother Angara Seetha Mahalakshmamma, who died on 16-01-2002. The Apex Court in Shankar Balwant Lokhande (dead) by L.Rs v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande and another1 while explaining what constitutes final decree held that drawing up of final decree and then to engross it on stamped paper(s) of required value both acts together that would constitute "final decree."

8. In the light of the stand taken by the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be just and proper to drive the petitioners to another litigation. But however, the revision petitioners may have to prove the Will in question in accordance with law.

9.ln the light of the above, the civil revision is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Junior Civil Judge forgiving opportunity to the petitioners to prove the Will on the strength of which they pray to come on record in the place of their grand-mother Angara Seetha Mahalakshamma and on being satisfied to pass appropriate orders in the pending final decree proceedings. No order as to costs.