NARASAMMA Vs. HABEEBJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the lower Court in I.A.No. 62 of 1996 wherein the application filed by the respondents seeking permission of the Court to come on record as second plaintiff was allowed, the legal representatives of the first defendant filed this Revision Petition.

(2.) Heard both the learned Counsel.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent herein filedO.S.No. 313 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hindupur, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the first defendant, who died pending disposal of the suit. Thereafter, his legal representatives were brought on record. The trial of the suit was commenced on 18-7-1995 and the plaintiff was in the witness box by the time the first respondent herein filed the present I. A.No. 62 of 1996 seeking permission of the Court to come on record by stating that she purchased the property from the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 13-4-1987. This application was allowed on 3-12-1997 on payment of costs for filing an application with 11 years delay. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners by contending that the plaintiff has no title to the property and if the first respondent is allowed to 5 come on record after the commencement of the trial, again the matter has to be reopened without any finality and they have to fight the litigation not only against the plaintiff but also her alleged vendee from the beginning by filing a written statement to the claim of the second respondent.