COMMON ORDER:

Invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India these two Civil Revision Petitions are filed. In C.R.P.No.2204 of 2019 the revision petitioners call in question the order dated 03.07.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole in I.A.No.1241 of 2019 in O.S.No.698 of 2008. In C.R.P.No.2393 of 2019 the sole revision petitioner calls in question the order dated 19.06.2019 of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole in I.A.No.1036 of

2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2008.

2. Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, the learned counsel for revision petitioners and Ms. P.Rachana, the learned counsel representing Sri Kolluri Arjun Chowdary, the learned counsel for respondent submitted arguments.

3. Sri M.Subba Rao filed O.S.No.81 of 2008 as against Sri P.Veera Raghavaiah seeking for declaration that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with possession and enjoyment over the said C.R.P.No.2393 of 2019 property and for costs and such other reliefs. The defendant therein Sri P.Veera Raghavaiah filed O.S.No.698 of 2008 as against Sri M.Subba Rao seeking for permanent injunction. Both the suits were before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. Both the suits were consolidated and common evidence was recorded and both the suits were coming up for arguments. It was at that stage Sri P.Veera Raghavaiah died. In O.S.No.81 of 2008 the plaintiff therein Sri M.Subba Rao then filed I.A.No.1036 of 2019 under Order XXII Rule 4 C.P.C. seeking impleadment of his wife and children as legal representatives. After due hearing that application was allowed. That order of the learned trial Court is challenged now in the revision. In O.S.No.698 of 2008 one son of late Sri P.Veera Raghavaiah filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 C.P.C seeking for his impleadment as legal representative and bring him on record as second plaintiff. That application was dismissed by the learned trial Court stating that all the legal heirs of deceased sole plaintiff were to be brought on record and the applicant was at liberty to move a fresh application to bring all the legal heirs of the deceased as legal representatives. That is under challenge now in this revision.

C.R.P.No.2393 of 2019

4. Sri P.Narendra Babu is son of late Sri P.Veera Raghavaiah. In both the revisions he is one of the revision petitioners. His claim is that his father executed a registered Will dated 19.05.2018 whereunder he bequeathed the suit schedule property and other properties in his favour and subsequently mentioned in the Will that in the event of his death the legatee should prosecute the suits pending before the Court. The opposite party Sri M.Subba Rao did not challenge the existence and validity of the Will and did not challenge the relationship between the testator and the legatee. His only challenge was that deceased left other legal heirs and they should also be brought on record. That view of Sri M.Subba Rao was accepted by the trial Court. Therefore, in the injunction suit when the legatee alone sought his impleadment as legal representative the trial Court declined to do so. In the declaration suit at the behest of Sri M.Subba Rao when all the legal representatives were invited to the enquiry the learned trial Court was satisfied that all of them were legal representatives and therefore, allowed that application. That order is challenged not only by the legatee under the Will but also by all the other legal heirs in the revision. The reason for all of them C.R.P.No.2393 of 2019 to come over to the revisional Court is that in I.A.No.1036 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2008 filed by Sri M.Subba Rao the legatee filed a counter claiming that he alone should be impleaded as legal representative. The wife and other children of late Sri P.Veera Raghavaiah filed a memo adopting the counter of the legatee. That indicates that rest of the legal heirs recognized the legatee as the sole repre