APHC010648722022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2496/2022 Between:

Midthipati Balark, ...PETITIONER AND Midthipati Rama Raodied and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. RAMA MURTY P V S A Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. K APPA RAO

2.

The Court made the following order:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2496 OF 2022

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order, dated 18.10.2022, passed in I.A.No.129 of 2022 in O.S.No.49 of 2020, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthi.

2. The suit was originally filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, seeking permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.1 died. While so, the petitioner, who is the grandson of the plaintiff No.1 filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3, Section 151 of C.P.C, praying to bring on record the petitioner as legal representative of the plaintiff No.1. The said application was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the petitioner is not clear about the relief sought in the application and the other children of deceased-plaintiff No.1 i.e., the three sons and four daughters were not brought on record in the suit. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri Rama Murthy P.V.S.A., learned Counse for the Petitioner and Sri K. Appa Rao, learned counsel for the Respondents.

4. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the petitioner is the grandson of plaintiff No.1. In the absence of any dispute with regard to the same, the trial court ought to have permitted the petitioner to be brought on record as legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff No.1.

5. The legal representative, who is brought on record, would only represent the estate of the deceased and he need not be the successor of the property in this case. As the petitioner is a class-I heir, the trial court ought to have brought the petitioner on record. The other reasons given by the trial Court regarding the prayer in the Interlecutory are trivial in nature and should have been ignored.

6. In that view of the same, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 18.10.2022, passed by the trial court. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 03.01.2025 PKR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2496 OF 2022 Date: 03.01.2025 PKR