JUDGMENT :

R. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. This Revision has been filed against the fair and Decretal Order, dated 29.4.2019 passed in I.A. No. 2 of 2019 in C.M.P. No. 922 of 2018 in A.S. No. 14 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Before the First Appellate Court, A.S. No. 14 of 2018 was filed by the Plaintiff, who partially lost the Suit against the father of the present Petitioner herein, one Naveen Kumar, who is admittedly the Legal Heir of the deceased S. Chandrasekar, who was the Defendant in the Suit.

3. Since the said Chandrasekar is no more, the Plaintiff/Appellant before the First Appellate Court seems to have filed a Petition to implead or bring the Legal Representative of the said Chandrasekar, and the said Petition was allowed and accordingly amendment was carried out in the First Appeal.

4. Only at that stage, the said I.A. No. 2 of 2019 was filed by C. Naveen, whose original name is C. Naveen Kumar, who is the Petitioner herein, to set aside the said Order, dated 21.12.2018 passed ex parte in C.M.P. No. 922 of 2018 in A.S. No. 14 of 2018, by and under which he has been impleaded as the Legal Representative of the said Chandrasekar, who was the Defendant in the Suit. The said I.A. No. 2 of 2019 was dismissed on 29.4.2019, which is the Order impugned herein.

5. Heard Mr. Anbazhagan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and. Mr. P.B. Balaji, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

6. The point in issue in this revision is as to whether, the Revision Petitioner, though admittedly the Legal Heir of his father Chandrasekar, who was the original Defendant before the Trial Court, is the Legal Representative within the meaning of Section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code, in view of the issue raised by him that, he has not inherited the estate of the deceased Chandrasekar, though he is the Legal Heir of him.

7. In deciding the said issue, the learned Judge of the First Appellate Court, in the impugned Order, has passed the following Order:

"3. The present Petitioner is the Legal Heir of the deceased Chandrasekar is an admitted fact. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner need not be added as a party to the Appeal, since he has not inherited any property. No doubt, the Suit is for money. For the money borrowed by the parents, children cannot be held personally liable. On the other hand, the Decree has to be executed against the estate of the deceased inherited by the Legal Heirs. However, for deciding the Appeal, Legal Heir has to be impleaded. Behind the back of the Legal Heir, Appeal cannot be disposed. In such circumstances, impleading, the Petitioner as Respondent in the Appeal is inevitable. Having allowed the Petition (C.M.P. No. 922/2018) to be allowed and after 4 months filing of the present Petition to set aside the ex parte Order that too after amendment of the Appeal, appears to be a delaying tactics. The Petitioner is at liberty to agitate his turn at the time of execution. That being so, this Court finds no merits in this Application and the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. In the result, this Petition is dismissed. No costs."

8. Assailing the said Order, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has taken this Court to Section 2(11) of C.P.C. as well as Order 22, Rule 4-A & 5. For better appreciation, the relevant Section as well as the Order and Rule referred to above, are hereby extracted.

"Section 2(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;

Order 22, Rule 4-A : Procedure where there is no Legal Representative.- (1) If in any Suit, it shall appear to the Court that any party who has died during the pendency of the Suit has no Legal Representative, the Court may, on the Application of any