JUDGMENT 1. 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 I.L.R. (1881) A. 517 and Krishnajee Janardhan v. Murar Row Narasinga Row I.L.R. (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.