GUNNAM VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. VHA VANAJA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 16.2.2004 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada in LA. No.674 of 2003.

(2.) One Grandhi Ammanna filed O.S. No. 1135 of 1999 against the petitioner herein for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of a promissory note. During pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died on 8.2.2001. His wife pre-deceased him. He had three sons and three daughters. Alleging that the deceased plaintiff executed a Will dated 5.9.2000 in her favour, enabling her to pursue the suit claim and get the benefit out of it, one of his daughters viz., Vetcha Vanaja Kumari, the first respondent, filed LA. No.847 of 2001 under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. to come on record as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. This application was resisted by the petitioner herein on the ground that when the deceased plaintiff has left behind him the three sons and three daughters, the application filed by only one of the daughters is incompetent. In view of this development, Vanaja Kumari filed LA. No.674 of 2003 to implead her three brothers and two sisters as Respondents 2 to 5 in LA. No.847 of 2001. This application was resisted by the petitioner. Through the order under revision, the trial Court allowed the LA.

(3.) Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the application filed under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. is pending, another application filed under Order I Rule 10 is not maintainable. He submits that such a course of action would enable the parties to circumvent the various factors, which are relevant in deciding the application under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C.