SWATHI Vs. SINDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 17.10.2014 passed on LA. in O.S. No. 7/2000.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the second plaintiff in the said suit. The second defendant who is stated to be the purchaser of the property has been impleaded to the suit and the relief in prayer (c) has been sought against the second defendant.

(3.) THE learned Senior counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Court below was not justified. It is his case that when the applicant claims to be the son of the second defendant and in the application he contends that the second defendant is missing from 22.07.2010, no presumption in law has arisen to enable the applicant to come on record as a legal representative of the second defendant. It is also his case that the relief as prayed in the plaint is only against the second defendant and the applicant even if impleaded, cannot putforth any better case as against the one that could have been putforth by the second defendant. It is therefore contended that the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application and the order is liable to be set aside.