ORDER : Smt.Parvathy Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.R.B.Sadashivappa, learned counsel for the respondents 1(a) to 1(d). Mr.W.M.Sundaramurthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 03.09.2018 passed by the Trial Court by which the application filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.1 seeking recall of the order dated 25.08.2012 as well as their substitution has been allowed. 2. Facts leading to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioners filed a civil suit against the original defendant Mr.V.S.Dhanasekar and respondent Nos.2 and 3, in which the relief of permanent injunction restraining from interfering the suit schedule property and entering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the same, was sought. The aforesaid suit was filed on 02.04.2012. After institution of the suit, the petitioners learnt that defendant No.1 had already expired on the date of institution of suit and therefore, they filed a memo seeking deletion of defendant No.1 which was allowed by the Trial Court by an order dated 25.08.2012. Thereafter, the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 namely respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 25.08.2012 as well as for their impleadment. The aforesaid application were allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 03.09.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking the relief of injunction only and the plaintiffs themselves had filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to delete the name of defendant No.1 which was allowed on 25.08.2012. It is further submitted that the proposed legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 could not be impleaded in a suit for bare injunction. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) submitted that the respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) are in possession of the property in question and the plaintiffs, behind their back, want to seek injunction. It is also submitted that defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d), in the written statement, had set up a counter claim seeking relief of possession against the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, the order does not call for interference. 5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is also submitted that defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(d), in the written statement, had set up a counter claim seeking relief of possession against the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, the order does not call for interference. 5. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is well settled in law that the cause of action in a suit for injunction is personal in nature. It is also well settled in law that the plaintiffs are dominus litus. The plaintiffs, in the suit themselves had filed a memo for seeking leave of the Court to delete the name of defendant No.1 as they learnt that defendant No.1 had already expired on the date of institution of the suit. The aforesaid memo was allowed by the Trial Court by an order dated 25.08.2012 and the name of the deceased defendant No.1 was deleted from the plaint. The Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the cause of action in a suit for bare injunction had disappeared on the death of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs are dominus litus and they did not want to contest the suit against defendant No.1. However, the Trial Court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and by cryptic and non-speaking order, has allowed the application. The judicial discretion in allowing the application for impleadment has been exercised in an erroneous manner by the Trial Court. The order suffers from the error apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Needless to state that any order or decree which may be passed in the suit instituted by the plaintiffs, shall not bind the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 namely respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d) and they shall be at liberty to institute separate proceedings, if so advised with regard to the relief of possession which was sought for by them in the written statement, by way of a counter claim. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.