The suit in O.S.No.270 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, was filed by one Mrs.Amsavalli for recovery of possession of the suit property from the respondent herein. The trial Court, by decree and judgment dated 27.02.2014, dismissed the suit. As against the same, Mrs.Amsavalli, the sole plaintiff, filed an appeal in A.S.No.35 of 2014 before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. By decree and judgment dated 27.01.2015, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court.

2. Subsequently, Mrs.Amsavalli died on 01.05.2015. The petitioners herein are the children of Mrs.Amsavalli and thus, they are her legal representatives. They have filed a second appeal before this Court challenging the decree and judgment of the Courts below. The said second appeal is yet to be numbered and the same is pending in S.A.Sr.No.41479 of 2015. Along with the said second appeal, the petitioners have filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2015 requesting this Court to accept the cause title as shown in the appeal memorandum.

3. When the said miscellaneous petition came up for hearing, a doubt arose in the mind of this Court as to how such a petition is maintainable and what is the legal necessity for such a petition? The learned counsel, present in Court, expressed divergent views in respect of the maintainability of such a petition. There is also no uniformity of procedure being followed in various Courts throughout the State in the Subordinate Judiciary as well as in this Court.

4. Admittedly, so far as this Court is concerned, it is a long standing practice of the Registry to insist for such a petition from the legal representatives of the deceased, be it the legal representatives of the appellant or the respondent, to make such an application with a request to accept the cause title so as to include the names of the legal representatives of the deceased party as parties to the appeal.

5. In some of the District Courts in this State, the procedure adopted is for the appellant to file an interlocutory application first requesting to recognize the legal representatives of the deceased. After hearing both sides on notice, if the petition is allowed, then the appeal is entertained. Thus, the said order is treated as a judicial order. It is also brought to my notice that in some other districts, the practice is that the appellants may straightaway file the appeal making a statement as to who are all impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased party who died subsequent to the judgment of the lower Court and such appeal is entertained without insisting for any petition like a petition seeking an order to accept the cause title as it is done in the High Court or by filing an interlocutory application to recognize the petitioners as the legal representatives of the deceased party. Thus, it is quite clear that there is no uniformity of procedure being followed amongst the Courts in the State of Tamil Nadu.

6. In view of the divergent views expressed and since there is no uniformity, I felt that it is necessary to examine the correctness of the procedure being followed by this Court and elsewhere in the other Courts in the subordinate judiciary. Considering the importance of the issue, this Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madras High Court to make his submissions through the standing counsel for the High Court. Accordingly, Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, the learned Senior Counsel appeared for the Registry of the High Court. This Court also invited the Bar members to express their views and to make their submissions. Accordingly, a number of counsel took pains to make their submissions on this issue. Mr.Anand Venkatesh, the learned counsel, acting as Amicus Curiae of this Court, made elaborate submissions. Though the counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) in similar petitions pending before this Court also