The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of natural justice and the opportunity for legal representatives to be heard before any liability is fastened upon them. The court also emphasized that impleading at one stage of the proceeding may be sufficient for other stages without fresh impleading.

1. One Chellappa Rowther was a tenant of some properties. All these three revision petitions arose consequent on the resumption proceedings initiated by the landlords. Resumption was allowed. There were appeals and revisions and the matter was remanded for exercise of option by the tenant. Tenant opted for 50 cents in Sy. No. 3171. The option was accepted and the Land Tribunal passed orders on 9-1-1975. Pending appeal before the appellate authority two of the landlords died and the legal representatives were impleaded. From the order of the appellate authority there was revision before this Court and the matter was remanded solely for the purpose of demarcating the 50 cents and fixing compensation. Before the Land Tribunal the legal representatives of the tenant (who also died) contended that fresh application and substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased landlords is necessary. That contention was opposed on the ground that since the legal representatives were substituted in appeal it is not necessary to have a fresh substitution before the Land Tribunal. Land Tribunal impleaded the legal representatives suo mote without an application. That order was first challenged by the tenants in OP 1846 of 1984 and then by AA 80 of 1984, and both were dismissed. Hence CRP 1566 of 1986 was filed by them.

2. Mohammed Ali, one of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant challenged the resumption proceedings in OS 154 of 1984 on the ground that he was not substituted as one of the legal representatives of his deceased father. In that suit he applied for injunction to restrain the proceedings in the resumption matter. That was dismissed and C. M. Appeal filed against that order was also dismissed. CRP 2688 of 1985 was filed against the refusal of injunction. In that suit he also filed IA 1584 of 1984 to call for the records of the resumption case to disprove the contention of the opposite side that he was impleaded and represented by his guardian during his minority and thereafter he himself prosecuted the case. That petition was rejected on the ground that he can produce attested copies of documents and the question of calling for original records will arise only when steps are taken to prove signatures by comparison by expert. C. M. Appeal filed by them was also dismissed and CRP 2686 of 1985 is challenging the same.

3. CRP 2686 of 1985 has absolutely no merit. The revision petitioner did not satisfy the court of the necessity of calling for any original documents from the Land Tribunal. He did not specify any document. He only wanted to call for the records generally without attempting to produce attested copies. He did not make any attempt to contend or request the court that any signature in any document is not genuine and hence it may be called for and sent for expert opinion along with admitted signatures either produced or to be taken before court. His right, if any, to make such a request at the appropriate time on satisfaction of the requirements is not negatived by the orders. The orders rejecting the prayers do not suffer from any infirmity requiring interference in revision.

4. That is the case with CRP 2688 of 1985 also. Prayer for injunction was negatived by both the courts below on prima facie grounds. When the original tenant Chellappa Rowther died his widow (mother of the petitioner who acted as his guardian during his minority) was called upon by Exts.Bl and B2 affidavit and petition by the landlords to furnish the names of the legal representatives to be impleaded. The names of 11 persons were given by Ext.B3 and they were impleaded. 7th person is Ali who is said to be the petitioner. He now claims to be Mohammed Ali and not mere Ali. He has no case that there is another brother by name Ali or any other brother who was not impleaded as a legal representative. Since there was further dispute that some other legal representative is also there, Exts.B4 and B5 affidavit and petition were file