The 2nd respondent herein filed O.S. No.123 of 2003 in the Court of the Senor Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein figured as 8th defendant in the suit.

2. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant, by name, Tammana Venkateswararao died. The 1st respondent herein i.e. the plaintiff, filed I.A.No.1503 of 2004 under Order – XXII Rule -4 stating that according to the information received by him, the deceased 1st defendant executed a Will in favour of the 1st respondent herein and that she may be brought on record as defendant No.9. The trial Court dismissed the I.A through order, dated 16-06-2006, holding that the legatee under Will cannot be brought on record as legal representative. However, it left open to the 1st respondent herein, who figured as 9th respondent in I.A. No.1503 of 2004, to come on record on her own accord.

3. The 1st respondent filed I.A. No.429 of 2009 under Order – I Rule – 10 CPC with a prayer to implead her as 9th defendant in the suit. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 29-08-2011. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the 8th defendant in the suit.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

5. On the death of the 1st defendant in the suit, efforts were made to bring his legal representatives on record. The natural legal heirs did not come forward. On the information available to him, the plaintiff i.e. the 2nd respondent herein, filed I.A.No.1503 of 2004 with a request to bring the 1st respondent herein on record as 9th defendant, on the strength of a Will said, to have executed by the deceased 1st defendant. The trial Court rightly dismissed the I.A., observing that the legatee under a Will of a deceased party to the suit cannot be brought on record except when an application is made by such legatee himself. It is in this context, the 1st respondent filed I.A. and the same was allowed.

6. The plea of the petitioner that it is only on proof of the Will that the 1st respondent can be brought on record is difficult to be accepted. The question as to whether the Will, relied upon by the 1st respondent, is true and genuine can be examined only in the trial of the suit. There cannot be any independent exercise for that purpose. Further, even to prove the Will, the person, who claims under it, must figured a party, be it in the context of deposing as a witness or to take other steps in the matter. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision.

7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this revision petition also stands disposed of.