JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K.Rath, J By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 10.2.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in T.S. No.26 of 2000 whereby and whereunder learned trial court granted leave to substitute defendants 2,3,5 and 6 as against deceased defendant no.1. 2. Petitioner as plaintiff instituted T.S. No.26 of 2000 in the court of the learned 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction impleading her mother and opposite parties 1 to 6 as defendants. Her mother was defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 filed the written statement-cum-counter claim for eviction. Defendants 2 to 6 were set ex parte. During pendency of the suit, defendant no.1 died leaving behind her two sons i.e. defendant nos.2 and 3, daughters-defendant no.5, plaintiff and two other daughters, who were not parties to the suit. Be it noted that defendant no.4 son of defendant no.1 died. The plaintiff filed an application to substitute two daughters of defendant no.1 as defendant no.1(a) and 1(b). The same was allowed. While the matter stood thus, defendants 2,3 and 5 filed an application purported to be under Order 22 Rule 1 CPC for substitution and to prosecute the lis. The plaintiff filed an objection. Learned trial court came to hold that legal representative including the person who are not the legal heir, but represent the estate of the deceased. The legal representative is to continue litigation as the cause of action sued upon and cannot set up a new or individual right. Held so, it allowed the application. 3. Heard Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Ms. Sumitra Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that defendant no.1 is the mother of the plaintiff and other defendants. She filed a written statement-cum-counter claim. She died during pendency of the suit. Thereafter, an application was filed by the plaintiff to substitute two daughters, who were not parties to the suit. The same was allowed. The other defendants were set ex parte. They cannot continue the litigation in view of the fact that they were set ex parte. She filed a written statement-cum-counter claim. She died during pendency of the suit. Thereafter, an application was filed by the plaintiff to substitute two daughters, who were not parties to the suit. The same was allowed. The other defendants were set ex parte. They cannot continue the litigation in view of the fact that they were set ex parte. He relied on the decision of Piyush Hasmukhlal Desai v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), AIR 2015 Orissa 43. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite parties, submitted that defendant no.1 died leaving behind defendants 3 to 6, plaintiff as well as two daughters. The application for substitution filed for substitution of two daughters has been allowed. Since other defendants are already on record, they can continue the litigation. He further submitted that though defendant no.1 died, but her right to sue survives. 6. In Piyush Hasmukhlal Desai (supra), this Court held that the words “right to sue” occurring in Order 22 CPC mean the right to bring a suit asserting a right to the same relief which the deceased plaintiff asserted at the time of his death. The decision is distinguishable on facts. 7. In Inaganti Venkatarama Row v. U.R.R.D.K. Venkatalingama, AIR 1922 Madras 49 during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff having died his legal representative was brought on record. Thereafter, he filed an application to amend the plaint asserting of a title by the legal representative hostile to the person whom he purports to represent. Taking a cue from the decisions in the case of Subbaraya Mudali v. Manicka Mudaliar (1896) ILR 19 Madr 345, Sham Chandgiri v. Bhayaran Panday (1894) ILR 22 Cal 92 and Sarat Chandra Banerjee v. Nani Mohan Banerjee ILR 36 Cal. 799, the Madras High Court held that in cases where there is a conflict of interests between the deceased plaintiff and his legal representative and where the latter claims that he is not bound by the transactions of the deceased plaintiff, the proper course is for the legal representative to file a separate suit to enforce his rights, and that it is not open to the legal representative in his capacity, as such, to repudiate the transactions, which have been admitted by the deceased to be valid and on the footing of the validity of which the deceased claimed certain reliefs in the plaint. Order XXII R.3 CPC enacts that where the right to sue survives the Court shall, on the application made in that behalf, cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. So that it is clear from the above rule that all that the legal representative can do is to take up the suit at the stage at which it was left by the deceased plaintiff and to continue the proceedings as legal representative. It is not open to him to assert any individual and hostile rights, which he may have against the deceased plaintiff and those claiming through or under him and to seek to enforce those individual and paramount rights under the guise of an application to amend the plaint. 8. In Radhakrishna Padhi v. Bhajakrishna Panda and others, AIR 1981 Orissa 63, this Court held that where during pendency of the suit the plaintiff dies and his legal heirs are substituted, the legal representatives are entitled to continue the suit on the basis of the claim laid by the original plaintiff. They are not entitled to plead to the contrary and obtain reliefs which the plaintiff himself was not entitled to, i.e., the substituted legal representatives are not entitled to claim independent title of their contrary to what had been claimed in the suit. 9. The order passed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perfunctory or flawed warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed. No costs.