Seetharam Reddy, J.
1. In this case on the death of the appellant, Sri J. H. Krishna Murthy, the aforesaid petition has been filed for bringing his legal representatives, petitioners Nos. 1 to 2, on record in the aforesaid C. C. C. A. This petition came up before the Court of the Deputy Registrar on 16-4-1985. The name of Sri Challa Seetharamaiah, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, appeared in the cause-list and it was not contested. Though it is stated by the learned counsel that he was not present on that day, the Deputy Registrar ordered the said petition on the ground that it was not contested on that day. The objection now advanced by Sri Challa Seetharamaiah is based on the provisions in R. 12 (16) of the Rules in Appellate jurisdiction of this High Court, which reads :
'(16). To enter in the record the name of the representative of a deceased appellant, petitioner or respondent, except in cases under appeal to the Supreme Court :Provided that contested applications and applications presented out of time falling within clauses 15 and 16 above shall be posted before a Judge for disposal.'
2. Since this was a contested matter, according to the learned counsel, wherein he also served a copy of the counter on the other side, the otherside, ought to have brought the fact to the notice of the Court of the Deputy Registrar and even otherwise also since the matter is under contest there is initial want of jurisdiction in the Court of the Deputy Registrar and therefore the order made by the Deputy Registrar's Court, is null and void. We apprehend this position cannot be countenanced. It is too late in the day to plead that the Deputy Registrar's Court had initial want of jurisdiction. The Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction and so long it is not properly 'contested' it cannot be said that he ceased to have jurisdiction. Here is a case where admittedly the name of the learned counsel was listed and none appeared and therefore it was very properly ordered by the Deputy Registrar as not contested. Therefore, the plea of want of jurisdiction, much less initial want of jurisdiction, is very much devoid of merit and substance and the same is rejected. Therefore, the substitution of the legal representatives so ordered by the Court of the Deputy Registrar stands and needs no interference.
3. Order accordingly.