MOHAMMAD HAFEEZ Vs. MOHAMMAD AKBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif, Sangareddy dt. 10th November 1980 allowing T.A.No. 254 of 1980 filed by the respondents herein under Or 1 rule 10 CPC to implead them as respondents to the O.P. filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The circumstances leading to the revision are as follows: The petitioner filed O.P.No. 6 of 1977 in the District Munisif's court, Sanga reddy for grant of a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act for withdrawing an amount of Rs. 3122-40 Ps. which was deposited by his father Mohd. Salar in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Sangareddy branch, The respondrnts filed a claim petition in I-A.No. 235 of 1977 claiming that they are entitled to the certificate under a will executed by the late Mohd. Salar and therefore the certificate may be granted in their favour. It was however dismissed and Civil Revision petition filed against the said order also met with the same fate in this court. Thereafter, I.A.No. 151 of 1979 was filed by the respondents raising a new plea that a compromise was arrived at between the revision petitioner and his father late Mohd. Salar in A.S.No. 159 of 1971 in this court under which he was given some share with no further right to the properties in future. The LA. was allowed and a revision, CRP. No. 5055/79 filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default on 9-6-1980. The application filed for setting asied the order of dismissal was dismissed on 29-7-1980. The respondents then filed an interlocutory application (I.A.No. 254 of 1980) under Or. I. rule 10 CPC to implead them as respondents to the O.P. filed by the revision petitioner. It was allowed by the court below. Hence this revision. The contention of Mr. Ramarao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, is that the orders made on the application filed by the claim petitioners culminating in the dismissal of the application filed for setting aside the order of dismissal constitutes res judicata and therefore the application for impleading them as respondents to the O.P. is barred. Consequently, under section 387 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, it is not open to the respondents in these proceedings to challenge the legality of the certificate to be issued under the Indian SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 and therefore in so far as the proceedings in the O.P. are concerned they have become final as respondents could not avail themselves of the remedy provided under the Act by failing to contest the matter effectively and properly,

(3.) The counter contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents are that if the respondents are precluded from participating in the proceedings by not allowing them to get impleaded as respondents to the O.P. even though there is scope for challenging the proceedings by filing suit, it would unnecessarily lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the petition filed by the respondents to implead them in the O.P. has been rightly allowed by the court below and the order of the lower court requires no interference by this court in this revision.