G SAVITRAMMA Vs. K RAMADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the petitioners question the order of the Court below, in impleading all the persons claiming to be the Legal Representatives of the deceased-second defendant in the suit, without determining as to who are the Legal Representatives of the deceased.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Order 22 Rule 5 CPC is mandatory and the Court is bound to decide the question as to who are the Legal Representatives of the deceased party when a dispute is raised and that the decision on such a dispute cannot be postponed to the later date. The Court below observed that all the persons claiming to be the Legal Representatives can be impleaded without prejudice to their respective contentions. It is further observed by the Lower Court that there will be no executable decree that can be passed in favour of the deceased-second defendant. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that certain amounts were paid to the plaintiff towards mesne profits in excess of the amounts payable to the Plaintiff and that the Legal Representatives of the deceased will be entitled to a refund of the amounts paid in excess. Therefore prejudice will be caused to the petitioners, if the order under revision is allowed to stand.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the question as to who are the Legal Representatives can be decided at a later stage if the question of any payments to the Legal Representatives of the deceased arises at a future date.