MUPPALANENL RAVINDRA BABU Vs. MUPPALANENL VENKAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein filed I.A.No.164 of 1989 seeking to be impleaded as legal representative of the deceased-lst appellant in A.S.No.26 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala on the strength of an alleged Will dt. 30-12-1988. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein also filed another I.A.No.91 of 1992 seeking them to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased-lst appellant alleging that they are her step children and that she died intestate. The Court below allowed I A.No.91 of 1992 and dismissed I.A.No.164 of 1989 disbelieving the Will. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.164 of 1989 the present revision petition has been filed. Submissions:

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that the Court below should have impleaded him and that the validity of the Will could have been decided in the main suit.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia submits that as an order passed in terms of Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not operate as res judicata, there was no bar in impleading both the petitioner as also the opposite party by allowing both the applications. The learned Counsel would contend that there is no bar in law in substituting the contesting parties and consequent determination of the dispute as regards genuineness or otherwise of the will. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on S. Charanjit Singh v. V. Bharatinder, Dokala Buchiraju v. Dokala Bangaramma, Mst. Deu v. Laxmi Narayan, L. Chandrasekhara Sarma v. J. Vimala Kumar P.