JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2123 of 1993 pending consideration before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging Ext.P3 order dated 24.10.2017 in I.A. No. 8354/2016 in O.S. No. 2123 of 1993, dismissing the review sought for by the petitioner to review the order dated 20.08.2016, whereby the petitioners were directed to implead the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant who was reported to be dead, as per a memo filed by the counsel dated 16.07.2015. 2. The contention advanced by the petitioners is that, the 2nd defendant died on 01.10.2014 while R.S.A. No. 1108/2010 was pending before this Court, and the respondents who were appellants in the said R.S.A. failed to implead the legal heirs, and therefore, the order passed by the court below directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to implead the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant cannot be sustained under law. The court below, after elaborate consideration of the matter and taking into account the legal principles laid down, has arrived at a conclusion that, from a plain reading of Order XXII CPC, dealing with impleadment of the legal heirs consequent to the death of the defendants, it is the duty of the plaintiffs/petitioners to implead the legal heirs when the death of the defendant is reported, and therefore, the review sought for by the petitioners has no basis, and it was accordingly dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. The 2nd respondent is the deceased 2nd defendant. 4. Now the sole question to be considered is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P3 order passed by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions made in the original petition that, since the 2nd defendant died during the pendency of the second appeal, a duty is cast upon the respondents who were appellants in the second appeal to implead the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant. 5. However, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has invited my attention to the order passed by this Court in I.A. No. 2081/2016 in R.S.A. No. 1108/2010, which is the appeal preferred by the respondents before this Court. 5. However, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has invited my attention to the order passed by this Court in I.A. No. 2081/2016 in R.S.A. No. 1108/2010, which is the appeal preferred by the respondents before this Court. As pointed out by the petitioners, the said I.A. was filed by the petitioners herein, seeking to review the judgment on the ground that the judgment in the Second Appeal was pronounced by this court without noticing the fact that the 2nd appellant, i.e., the 2nd defendant in the suit died during the pendency of the Second Appeal. However, the said review petition was dismissed by this Court, after elaborate consideration. 6. Anyhow, the issue raised by the petitioners can be sorted out by appreciating Rule 4 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which read thus: “4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant - (1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant. (3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant. (4) The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place. (5) Where:- (a) the plaintiff was ignorant of the death of a defendant, and could not, for that reason, make an application for the substitution of the legal representative of the defendant under this rule within the period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) and the suit has, in consequence, abated. (b) the plaintiff applies after the expiry of the period specified therefor in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), for setting aside the abatement and also for the admission of that application under section 5 of that Act on the ground that he had, by reason of such ignorance, sufficient cause for not making the application within the period specified in the said Act, the Court shall, in considering the application under the said section 5 have due regard to the fact of such ignorance, if proved.” 7. On a perusal of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, one may have a doubt as to who has to implead the legal representative of a defendant. However, on a conjoint reading of sub-rules (4) and (5), it is categoric and clear that the duty to implead the legal representatives of the defendant is upon the plaintiff. The death is reported by the counsel appearing for the deceased defendant. It is true, during the pendency of the Second Appeal, 2nd defendant who was the 2nd appellant died, and the legal heirs ought to have been impleaded. But fact remains, the counsel was not aware of the death and consequently the same could not be brought to the notice of the Court. Anyhow, that issue raised by the petitioners was considered by this Court in the review petition specified above, and has dismissed the review, holding that a review is not maintainable on the ground so raised by the petitioners. 8. It is an admitted fact that the death was reported by the counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent as is specified above, and it was thereupon that the court below directed the plaintiffs to implead the legal representative of the 2nd defendant. It is also true that, if the death of the 2nd appellant was noticed by the counsel for the appellants during the pendency of the Second Appeal, a duty was cast upon the surviving appellant to implead the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant in the second appeal. It is also true that, if the death of the 2nd appellant was noticed by the counsel for the appellants during the pendency of the Second Appeal, a duty was cast upon the surviving appellant to implead the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant in the second appeal. However, since the proceedings in the second appeal are already over and the subject matter was remanded for fresh consideration to the court below, then the procedure contemplated as per Order XXII, Rule (4) will come into play and the petitioners/plaintiffs are liable to implead the legal heirs when the death is reported by the counsel. 9. Having evaluated the fact situations and appreciating the legal circumstances, I do not think there is any illegality, jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity, justifying interference of this Court, exercising the power of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the original petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed. 10. However, petitioners are permitted to file suitable application for impleadment along with any consequential applications that are required under law, within a month, and if filed, it shall be considered in accordance with law, at the earliest possible time, and thereafter proceed with the suit proceedings in accordance with law, at the earliest.