Under challenge is Ext.P6 order, whereby, the court below allowed I.A.No. 933/2010 which is composite application for impleading, setting aside the abatement and condonation of delay. The third defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs were sought to be brought on the party array by the above petition.
2. The respondents 1 and 8 who contested the application pointed out that apart from being highly belated and also apart from the fact that separate petitions had to be filed for each of the purposes and it is also contended that going by clause 8 of the deed, no purpose can be served by bringing the legal heirs on the party array. Therefore, it was unnecessary and in fact, they had no right to revoke the nomination made by the deceased third defendant.
3. As to what are the rights that accrue to the person impleaded on the death of an existing member is a matter for adjudication. Apart from the above fact, it is also noticed by the lower court that one of the legal heirs of the deceased person is already on the party array in which case there is no abatement at all.
4. Sri. A.N. Rajan Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the 8th defendant has been nominated by the 3rd defendant in accordance with the deed and if that be so, the legal heirs to come on record cannot go to the said nomination. These are all matters on the merits of the case. We are only at the question of whether the impleading can be allowed.
5. It is trite that a person, who is brought in as the legal heir of the person, is bound by the stand taken by the deceased person and the persons who come on record as legal heirs cannot take a different stand.
In view of these principles in law, this Court finds no prejudice or grievance caused to the petitioner by allowing of the petitions.
This Original Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds