JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.9 to 12.

2. This revision is filed against the order passed in IA No.281 of 2024 in OS No.262 of 2002 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chittoor, dated 08.08.2024 in partly allowing the petition permitting the petitioner/7th defendant to participate in the suit proceedings at the stage of arguments only.

3. The petitioner is the 7th defendant in the suit and the respondent Nos.9 to 12 are the defendant Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 in the suit.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/7th defendant is only aggrieved of the order passed by the Court below only to the extent of permitting the petitioner to participate in the suit proceedings at the stage of arguments only. Having permitted to participate in the suit proceedings, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the petitioner/7th defendant to avail all the consequences instead of limiting the role of participation from the arguments stage only. When the petitioner/7th defendant was allowed to file the additional written statement in the suit proceedings, the said defendant must be in a position to participate in the suit proceedings from the stage of inception of the additional written statement. When the defendant No.8 was allowed to submit his written statement and when there was no restriction to participate from the stage of arguments only, inserting such restriction in the order dated 08.08.2024 for this petitioner/7th defendant is discriminatory as the petitioner would be deprived of seeking framing of additional issues if any and participation in the trial to cross-examine the witnesses in terms of the additional averments made in the written statement. Since the plaint was amended, as the defendant Nos.1 and 2 died and their legal representatives were brought on record permitting to file additional written statement, it is just and necessary to allow the subsequent defendants who came on record to participate in the trial, if necessary, by reopening the same, but no useful purpose would be served if they are permitted to participate at the stage of arguments only without subjecting them for examination and cross-examination in the course of trial.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the above said respondents/defendants submits that the 2nd defendant who is the father of the petitioner/7th defendant already filed written statement on 07.06.2003 itself and the petitioner has come on record as one of the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant. Even if he is allowed to file additional written statement he need not be permitted to seek for reopening of the trial and restricting him to participate at the stage of arguments only, no prejudice would be caused as the necessary evidence was already let in for the defendants. Merely because there are inter se disputes amongst the defendants, that cannot be a ground for reopening of the trial at the instance of one of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant who initially contested the suit by filing the written statement. Earlier the plaintiff filed CRP No.2324 of 2014 against the order of recalling of DW1 for further cross-examination which was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 08.09.2023. When the 2nd respondent died, defendant Nos.6 to 8 are brought on record as the legal representatives of the 2nd defendant. In this case, the 3rd defendant also filed written statement on 04.04.2024.

He refers to the Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C., at this stage which reads as under:

Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.-(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal repres