P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) EDWYN Anthony Pereira the revision petitioner-first defendant in O. S. No. 39 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad died pending revision and his legal representatives are brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4 in C. M. P. No. 26182 of 2003 by an order of this Court today. ( 2 ) SRI Venu Gopal, learned counsel representing the petitioner/first defendant, who is no more at present, and now representing the legal representatives of the deceased-first petitioner contended that this is an interpleader suit and the procedure to be followed is as contemplated by Order 35, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) for the purpose of convenience ). The learned counsel further submitted that contrary to the procedure specified by the provisions of Order 35 of the Code, the impugned order was made, where permission was granted to open the sealed cover in the presence of both the advocates or parties. The learned counsel maintained that such power cannot be exercised by the Court below under Section 151 of the Code in the light of the specific procedure specified under the provisions of Order 35 of the Code relating to inter pleader-suit. ( 3 ) SRI Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri K. R. Kuppuswamy lyengar had submitted that this suit being an inter pleader suit, filed by Sri K. P. Kuppuswamy lyengar he had no interest in the matter, the dispute being between the defendants inter se. ( 4 ) SRI Prabhakar, learned counsel representing second respondent in the revision petition-second defendant in the suit had taken me through the cross-examination of D. W. 1 i. e. the first revision petitioner and had pointed out under what circumstances the impugned order was passed. The learned counsel further contended that in the course of cross-examination since it was felt that the opening of the sealed cover is essential for the purpose of knowing the contents of the sealed cover, the order is well justified and the said order was passed in the interest of both the defendants, especially in view of the fact that the counsel representing the present revision petitioner/first defendant before the said Court reported no objection, if the Court permits the same. ( 5 ) THE impugned order was made on 20-8-2002 in I. A. No. 1309 of 2002 in O. S. No. 39 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Second respondent herein/ second defendant in the suit filed the said application under Section 151 of the Code praying the Court to permit the opening of the packet, marked as Ex. A-8 and to proceed in the matter further The order reads as hereunder :"counter of respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1 filed. Heard. Permitted to open the sealed cover in the presence of both advocates or parties. " ( 6 ) THE order is impugned on the main ground that this procedure adopted by the Court below is contrary to Order 35, Rule 4 of the Code. Order 35 of the Code deals with inter pleader-suits and Rule 4 deals with procedure at first hearing and the said provision reads as hereunder:"procedure at first hearing. 4. (1) At the first hearing the Court may (a) declare that the plaintiff is discharged from all liability to the defendants in respect of the thing claimed, award him his costs, and dismiss him from the suit; or (b) if it thinks that justice or convenience so require, retain all parties until the final disposal of the suit. " (2) Where the Court finds that the admissions of the parties or other evidence enable it to do so, it may adjudicate the title to the thing claimed. (3) Where the admissions of the parties do not enable the Court so to adjudicate, it may direct (a) that an issue or issues between the parties be framed and tried, and (b) that any claimant be made a plaintiff in lieu or in addition to the original plaintiff, and shall proceed to try the suit in the ordinary manner. ( 7 ) IT is pertinent to note that this procedure specified under Rule 4 of Order 35 of the Code is applicable only at first hearing. Here is a case where at the stage of recording the evidence of D. W. 1, the impugned order was made. No doubt D. W. 1 is no more in this world. But the relevant portion of his evidence, which was recorded by the Court below, reads as hereunder :"i have written a letter under Ex. A-6. Ex. Here is a case where at the stage of recording the evidence of D. W. 1, the impugned order was made. No doubt D. W. 1 is no more in this world. But the relevant portion of his evidence, which was recorded by the Court below, reads as hereunder :"i have written a letter under Ex. A-6. Ex. B-1 is the original of Ex. A-1 received by me from the Counsel from defendant No. 2 dated 30-11-1998. Ex. B-2 is the carbon the Ex. A-6 dated 2-4-1999. Ex. B-3 is the letter received by me from plaintiff, dated 8-3-1999 and is a copy of Ex. a. 7, Ex. B-3 in reply to Ex. A-6 there is a mistake in the date in Ex. B-3. I have not sent any reply to Ex. B-3. I have not sent any reply to Ex. A-1 /b-1. It is true I have received Rs. 1,20,000. 00 as mentioned in Ex. A-l. Qn. On the day i. e. , yourself and M. Prakash Rao (D-2) gave documents to be kept in stapled, packet to be opened only in the presence of both the parties this was the understanding. Ans. It is true that on 19-4-1999 myself and D-2 kept the documents in a stapled packet with the plaintiff. It is not correct to suggest that the understanding was to open it at the presence of both the parties. Witness adds that it has to be opened at my request and again adds it should be given to me. It is not true to suggest that the stappling was done at my residence, it is not true to suggest that a separate receipt was kept in a separate cover. It is true I received from Prakash Rao (D-2) Rs. 50,000. 00. It is not true that this money was received by me in my house. The witness adds that the money was received at office of the plaintiff. At this stage the plaintiff and counsel for D-2 want to open the packet as witness is not able to recollect from his memory the exact contents unless the same was shown to him. The counsel for D-1 reported to no objection if the Court permits. Under these circumstances the counsel requested me to take further directions from the Hon ble Court in this regard. The counsel for D-1 reported to no objection if the Court permits. Under these circumstances the counsel requested me to take further directions from the Hon ble Court in this regard. " ( 8 ) FROM this cross-examination it is clear that at a particular stage since the opening of the packet was considered to be essential in the interest of both parties, the counsel representing the revision petitioner/first defendant also reported no objection if the, Court permits the same and in view of the same, the impugned order was passed. It is really astonishing and surprising that the same defendant i. e. first defendant, who is no more, again raises an objection to the procedure adopted by the Court below. This is totally unjustified and unwarranted. Evidently, the deceased first defendant was not interested in the disposal of the matter and that is why the present revision was thought of with a view to stall the further proceedings. It is no doubt true that the said petitioner! is no more and at; present the legal representatives are prosecuting the present petition. ( 9 ) IN the light of the findings recorded above, the revision petition being devoid of merits shall stand dismissed. In the ordinary course, it is a fit matter where exemplary costs should have been awarded, but, however, in view of the fact that the original party is no more and the legal representatives are at present prosecuting the litigation and taking into consideration that a respectable senior member of the Bar instituted this suit as inter pleader suit, I am not inclined to award any costs. Petition dismissed.