AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The judgment-creditor had applied in time for bringing one of the representatives of David Pillai, namely the 2nd respondent Sawmi Pillai, on
record and that application was granted. That being so the cases of Ramanuj Seivak Singh v. Hurgu Lal ILR (1881) A. 517 and Krishnajee
Janardhan v. Murar Row Narasinga Row ILR (1887) B. 48 with which we agree, show that there is no bar to the other representatives of David
Pillai, viz., respondents 3 and 4, being also brought on the record, on the present application. We may say that we do not understand the ground
on which the learned District Judge distinguishes these cases. We order that Marikuruthu Ammal and Kalaniathi Ammal be brought on the record
as legal representatives of David Pillai, and set aside the order of the District Judge with costs to be paid by the respondents.