P. SRI RAMULU AND ORS. Vs. P. POLARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order, dtd. 3/11/2017, passed in I.A.No.1706 of 2017 in F.D.I.A.No.210 of 2013 in O.S.No.16 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, wherein an application filed under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice, to implead the petitioners as necessary parties in the final decree petition was dismissed, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed under Sec. 115 of C.P.C.

(2.) The facts which lead to filing of the Civil Revision Petition would show that one P.V.Chiranjeevi, who is the second petitioner herein along with another made an application for passing of final decree by appointing an advocate commissioner for partition of suit schedule property, as they are the legal representatives of one P.Sri Ramulu, who died on 10/9/2016, leaving behind the petitioners. It is said that a preliminary decree was passed in O.S.No.16 of 2002 in favour of their father. It is also said that a registered will deed dtd. 4/8/2015 came to be executed in their favour by their father with sound and disposed state of mind. As such, they filed an application for adding them as necessary parties in the final decree proceedings, since the estate of the deceased plaintiff devolved upon them in pursuance of the registered will deed dtd. 4/8/2015. The said application was filed under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of C.P.C. and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice.

(3.) A counter came to be filed stating that the provisions of law quoted are incorrect and two prayers cannot be made in a single petition. It is further stated that without filing a registered Will Deed and in proof thereof, the petition is not maintainable.