IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2566 of 2013 Between Chimakurthy Chandramouli.
…PETITIONER AND Pabbisetty Srinivasa Rao.
…RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. T. SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR. SINGAM SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner is Judgment Debtor No.1. The decree for possession was put to execution by the decree holder in EP.No.98 of 2010. However, the decree holder died and one of his sons filed EA.No.294 of 2012 seeking to come on record by contending that he is the sole legatee under the Will executed by the deceased decree holder.
That application of the proposed party was opposed by the petitioner by disputing the Will and also by stating that there are other legal heirs to the decree holder and in their absence, the execution proceedings cannot proceed. By the impugned order dated 01.04.2013, the executing Court allowed the impleadment, as sought for by one of the sons, by further directing that he shall also implead the other legal heirs of the decree holder, as parties to the execution petition. The said order is questioned in this revision petition.
2. I am unable to see any prejudice to the judgment debtor when decree holder is represented by at least one of his legal representatives, who is admittedly son of the deceased decree holder. The disputes, as to whether there is a Will executed in favour of the said proposed party and as to whether the said Will is genuine and valid in law, are not matters, which concern the executing Court at this stage, particularly, as other legal representatives of the decree holder were also directed to be impleaded along with the proposed party.
3. Learned counsel for the decree holder states that as per the impugned order, all the other legal representatives are already added and all of them are before the executing Court in the said EP.
4. In view of that, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order, as none of the rights or claims of the petitioner/judgment debtor are in any manner affected by the impugned order.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J June 26, 2014 DSK