ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard counsel on both sides.

3. In an application under Order 22 Rule 5, the trial Court had rightly appreciated the facts and passed an appropriate order. The High Court on revision without appreciating the scope of the application observed that the proposed legal representatives can take up all other defences arising from their individual rights.

4. Aggrieved by the said observation, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition.

5. After perusing the orders of the trial court and of the High Court, we are of the view that on the facts of this case, the High Court was not right in observing that the proposed legal representatives can take up all other defences arising from their individual rights. The reason is that the respondents on more than one occasion moved applications under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC raising contention to agitate their individual rights and those applications were dismissed. The trial Court observed thus :

"The scope of an enquiry under Section 22 Rule 5 of the CPC is very limited. Moreover, this is a suit between landlord and tenant. The plea taken by the proposed LRs. is inconsistent with the plea taken by the dece