JUDGMENT : (BASANT BALAJI, J.) [OP(C) Nos.57/2024, 19/2024 and 322/2024] In all these Original Petitions, the petitioners are defendants Nos.1 and 2 in O.S. No.53 of 2020 on the files of the 2 nd Additional Munsiff Court, Kozhikode. The respondents are supplementary plaintiffs Nos.2 to 7 and 3 rd defendant in the suit. O.S. No.53 of 2020 was filed by one Mr.T N Sankaran Nair against the petitioners and the 7 th respondent for a declaration and injunction. The declaration sought is that the plaintiff, till his death, has the right to do rituals and poojas in plaint A and B schedule Kavu, and defendant No.1 Trust has no right over plaint A and B schedule Kavu. A permanent prohibitory injunction is also sought to restrain defendants Nos.1 to 3 from obstructing the poojas, rituals and festivals conducted by the plaintiff in plaint A and B schedule properties. A decree for a mandatory injunction to release articles shown in plaint C schedule for conducting festivals and rituals is also prayed for. Pending the suit, on 12.12.2022, the original plaintiff passed away. Respondents 1 to 6 filed I.A. No.1 of 2023 to get themselves impleaded as Legal heirs of the original plaintiff. The trial court allowed the impleading application as per the order dated 27.01.2023. The petitioners challenge the order in the said I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.53 of 2020, which is produced as Ext.P3 in O.P.(C) No. 322 of 2024. 2. After getting impleaded, respondents Nos.1 to 6 as additional plaintiffs filed I.A. No.5 of 2023 to convert the suit into a representative capacity suit to represent the members of the Nedumpurathu Tharwad. 3. A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioners 1 and 2, along with the 7 th respondent. By order dated 27.11.2023, the trial court allowed I.A. No.5 of 2023. Order in I.A.No.5 of 2023 is produced in O.P.(C) No.19 of 2024 as Ext.P5. Another I.A., as I.A.No.2 of 2023, is filed by a 3rd party, who is the 1st respondent in O.P.(C) No.57 of 2024, to get herself impleaded as an additional defendant. The said application was allowed as per the order dated 27.11.2023. In O.P.(C) No.57 of 2024, the order in I.A.No.2 of 2023 is challenged. Another I.A., as I.A.No.2 of 2023, is filed by a 3rd party, who is the 1st respondent in O.P.(C) No.57 of 2024, to get herself impleaded as an additional defendant. The said application was allowed as per the order dated 27.11.2023. In O.P.(C) No.57 of 2024, the order in I.A.No.2 of 2023 is challenged. Since the petitioners in all the Original Petitions are one and the same, and the orders challenged are also in a single suit, these Petitions are heard together, and a common judgment is passed. 4. Heard Smt.Veena Hari for the petitioner, Sri.John K George for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and K M Jamaludheen for the additional 8 th respondent. [O.P.(C) No.322 of 2024 is taken as the leading case.] 5. As mentioned earlier, the order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.53 of 2020, filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6, was allowed, and they were impleaded as supplemental plaintiff Nos.2 to 7 therein. 6. O.S.No.53 of 2020 is filed by Sankaran Nair, who was the predecessor in the interest of respondents 1 to 6. The said suit was filed for a declaration that he alone has the right to do rituals and poojas in Plaint A and B schedule properties as per the practice followed for years in the family and the petitioners, who were defendants Nos.1 and 2, do not have any right to obstruct him from doing the poojas and rituals. The suit is filed by the plaintiff as karanavar of the family to protect A and B schedule properties from the defendant Nos.1 to 3. 7. From a reading of the plaint as a whole and the prayers sought for, it is evident that the suit is filed by the original plaintiff as the karanavar for declaration and injunction, till his death. After the death of the original plaintiff on 12.12.2022, the legal heirs filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 to get themselves impleaded as additional plaintiffs. The trial court, by Ext.P3 order, allowed the application in the I.A. by 2-line order without going into the question as to whether the right to sue continues after the death of the original plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. 8. The trial court, by Ext.P3 order, allowed the application in the I.A. by 2-line order without going into the question as to whether the right to sue continues after the death of the original plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. 8. The case put forward by the petitioners in this O.P.(C) is that the cause of action in the original suit will not survive after the death of the plaintiff, and the suit ought to have been dismissed recording the same. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff is in personam. Therefore, the right of the original plaintiff ends with his death. The petitioners submit that Ext.P3 order is cryptic, without going into the question as to whether the suit O.S.No.53 of 2020 is one of personam and whether the right to sue survives. 9. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that though the suit is filed by the predecessors-in-interest, on behalf of the family as karanavar. On the death of the original plaintiff, the suit has to continue as the right to sue survives, because the suit is filed on behalf of the family. The trial court has rightly allowed the application to step into the shoes of the original plaintiff and proceed with the suit; hence, no interference is warranted. 10. It is to be noted that after the impleadment of the supplemental plaintiffs Nos.2 to 7, they have filed I.A. No.5 of 2023 to convert the suit into a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and the trial court has allowed the same as per the order Ext.P5 dated 27.11.2023, produced in O.P.(C) No.19 of 2024. Order 22 Rule 1 states that the death of the plaintiff or the defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives. Order 22 Rule 3 prescribes the procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or a sole plaintiff:- Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies, and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and right to sue survives, the court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. 11. 11. By allowing I.A.No.1 of 2023, the learned Munsiff has not considered whether the suit has abated on the death of the original plaintiff and whether the right to sue survives or not. In such circumstances, Ext.P3 order, which is under challenge in O.P.(C) No.322 of 2024, cannot be sustained in law; hence, Ext.P3 stands set aside. 12. The order under challenge in O.P.(C) No.19 of 2024 is the order in I.A.No.5 of 2023 whereby the supplemental plaintiffs 2 to 7 filed an application under Order 1 Rules 8 and 8-A read with Section 151 CPC, to convert the suit into a representative capacity, since the interest of numerous persons of the Tharawad is involved. The court below has allowed the said application on the basis of the order in I.A.No.1 of 2023, which was allowed and respondent Nos.2 to 6 became additional plaintiffs. Since I have already set aside the order in I.ANo.1 of 2023 in O.P.(C) No. 322 of 2024, the consequential order, which is passed in I.A.5 of 2023, necessarily has also to be set aside, and I do so. 13. In O.P.(C) No.57 of 2024, the order dated 27.11.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2023 is challenged, whereby a 3 rd party has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(1) read with Section 151 CPC to get herself impleaded, which was allowed as per I.A. 5 of 2023, on the basis of publication under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. In the light of the orders passed in O.P.(C) Nos. 322 of 2024 and 19 of 2024, Ext.P8 order in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.P.(C) No.57 of 2024 is also set aside. Accordingly, all the Original Petitions are allowed, the orders under challenge are set aside, and the trial court is directed to reconsider I.A.No.1 of 2023 first after hearing both sides. Based on the orders passed, I.A. No.5 of 2023 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 shall be heard and disposed of.