JUDGMENT 1. -This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned order dated 25.6.2013 whereby complaint's son has been allowed to continue the proceedings. 2. The short facts of the case are that late Sita Ram Sharma filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Act against the petitioner which is pending trial.During the trial, on 30.1.2012, Sita Ram died and learned counsel for the complainant moved an application for impleading the legal heirs as party without getting the said application signed from the legal heirs and without filing Vakalatnama in his favour. The present petitioner objected the said application and learned court below has ordered to put a note to this effect and also to take Pradeep Sharma, the legal heirs of Sita Ram on record as party. The revision was also filed against the said order and revisional court set aside the order dated 12.9.2012 of the learned trial Court and directed the learned trial Court to take all the legal heirs of the deceased on record upon presentation of proper application. The court below again passed the same order on 30.4.2013 taking Pradeep Sharma on record as legal heir of the deceased and his name has been marked with red ink on the cause title. Revision was filed which has been dismissed, hence this petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that the impugned order is erroneous. A separate cause title should have been filed showing the respondent as legal heir and the court below has not complied with the direction of the learned revisional court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 5. The facts are not in dispute that Sita Ram complainant has died on 30.1.2012 and application for impleading the legal heir as party has been moved and all the legal heirs of the deceased Sita Ram authorised Pradeep Sharma to continue with the litigation and looking to this fact, the court below has accepted the application and impleaded Pradeep Sharam as party respondent No. 1, hence there is nothing wrong in the impugned order. 6. The only objection of the present petitioner is that a separate cause title should be filed and in place of separate cause title, the court below has marked the name of the applicant with red ink which is also permissible under the rules. 6. The only objection of the present petitioner is that a separate cause title should be filed and in place of separate cause title, the court below has marked the name of the applicant with red ink which is also permissible under the rules. Apart from this, for the sake of arguments, the contention of the present petitioner is that complaint is incompetent and proper procedure has not been followed. If there is any defect in the complaint which is in favour of the present petitioner, no adverse effect has been caused to the present petitioner by passing the impugned order, rather if complaint is defective this is in favour of the present petitioner. 7. The petition is misconceived and seems to be filed with mala fide motive of delaying the litigation. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.Hence dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******