The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to follow the appropriate provisions, such as Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, for impleading legal representatives, rather than resorting to other provisions like Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

1. C.R.P. No.4157 of 2011 is filed as against the order passed in I.A.No.222 of 2011 in O.S.No.169 of 1993 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvallur.

2. According to the petitioners, initially, O.S.No.169 of 1993 was filed by one Mr. Sivaraju. The said suit was dismissed for default on 31.7.2006 and the said Sivaraju filed I.A.No.389 of 2007 to condone the delay of 189 days in filing the restoration petition. During the pendency of the same, the sole plaintiff namely, Sivaraju died on 2.1.2009. Subsequently, I.A.No.270 of 2009 was filed by one D. Sowdamani in.I.A.No.389 of 2007 in O.S.No.169 of 1993 seeking to implead herself as a legal representative of the original plaintiff Sivaraju and as a second plaintiff in the said suit. Thereafter, another I.A. was filed in I.A.No.463 of 2009 by the said Saudamani under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the LR application filed in I.A. No.270 of2009 to add the names of the respondents herein as legal representatives. However, these I.A.s were withdrawn, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, on 28.1.2011 and I.A.No.222 of 2011 was filed by the respondents herein on the same day under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC to implead themselves as plaintiffs in the suit and the same was allowed. Hence, the above civil revision petition.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents want to implead themselves as legatees under the Will executed by the deceased plaintiff, Sivaraju. According to the learned counsel, Section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code defines a "legal representative" as hereunder:

"(11) 'legal representative' means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued;"

As per the above definition, the term "legal representative" means any person who represents the estate of the deceased and includes any person, who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as far as Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is concerned, it reads as follows:

"10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties:-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."

But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as far as the respondents herein are concerned, they claim to be the legal representatives of the deceased. Consequently I.A.No.222of 2011 seeking to implead themselves as parties to the suit should not have been filed by them under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments:

(i) AIR 1962 SC page 232 (Andhra Bank Limited versus R. Srinivasan and others). The relevant paragraph reads as hereunder:

"18. Mr. Sastri concedes that a universal legatee would be a legal representative and he does not challenge that the person who intermeddles even with a part of the estate of the deceased is also a legal representative; but his argument is that a legatee who obtains only a part of the estate of the deceased under a Will cannot be said to represent his estate and is therefore not a legal representative under Section 2(11). We are not impressed by this argument. The whole object of widening the scope of the expression "legal representative" which th