ORDER : 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order of return passed by the Trial Court refusing to number the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased defendants 6, 7, 14, 15, 19 and 25. 2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of these petitions that the deceased defendants died even before the presentation of the suit and the fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner only after return of summons with an endorsement “died”. If the plaint is presented against the deceased defendants, the same shall be treated as a nullity as against deceased persons and therefore the petitioner cannot file a petition to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendants as no proceedings is pending against those deceased persons. The correct course for the petitioner would be to file an application to amend the cause title so as to implead the legal representatives of the deceased defendants. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of this Court in Amsavalli (Died) and others vs. Sarangabani, 2016 (1) CTC 61. The relevant portions of the judgment reads as follows: “12. Similar view has been taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Mohamed Ibrahim and others v. Chellammal, 1991 (1) L.W. 256 . That was a case where by the time when the first appeal was filed, the defendant died i.e. after the dismissal of the suit. When the appeal was presented before the first appellate Court, without knowing that the defendant was no more, he was impleaded as the respondent in the appeal. Later on, she filed an application under Order XXII of C.P.C. to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The explanation offered by the appellant was that she was not aware of the death of the defendant after the dismissal of the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge recorded the evidence on both sides in the said application and then allowed the application under Order XXII C.P.C. to bring on record the legal representatives. That was under challenge by way of revision before this Court. The learned Subordinate Judge recorded the evidence on both sides in the said application and then allowed the application under Order XXII C.P.C. to bring on record the legal representatives. That was under challenge by way of revision before this Court. A learned Judge (Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Srinivasan who later on became a Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India) in paragraph 1 has held as follows:- "No doubt, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in law, as the appeal filed by the respondent herein before the Subordinate Judge was a still born one as the defendant in the suit was dead by the time the appeal was filed. In such cases O.22, C.P. Code will not apply. There is no question of bringing on record the legal representatives as there was no valid appeal. The remedy of the appellant is to get the cause title amended, if it is within time to file the appeal against the legal representatives. If it is out of time, the remedy is to apply for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the legal representatives." In para 4 of the said judgment, the learned Judge has further held as follows:- "4. Though the contention put forward by the petitioners is correct in law, I am of the view that interests of justice require that an opportunity should be given to the respondent to prosecute the appeal as against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant after condoning the delay. It is possible to allow this revision petition and direct the respondent to file a fresh appeal with an application for condonation of delay. That would only mean further proceedings and further delay. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and in the interests of justice, I am of the view that the procedure can be suitably modified and the appropriate orders can be made in this revision petition itself." 3. The procedure mentioned in the above case law for the appeal presented against dead person is equally applicable to the suits also. The only difference is non-applicability of Section 5 application (under Limitation Act) to the Suits. Hence, if on the date of presentation of petition to amend cause title to include legal heirs of deceased defendants, if the Suit is out of time, the suit is barred by limitation against legal heirs. The only difference is non-applicability of Section 5 application (under Limitation Act) to the Suits. Hence, if on the date of presentation of petition to amend cause title to include legal heirs of deceased defendants, if the Suit is out of time, the suit is barred by limitation against legal heirs. On the other hand, if the limitation for suit is still alive, the plaintiff can file an application to amend cause title and include legal heirs of deceased defendants as party defendants. 4. In view of the same, the Trial Court is justified in returning the application filed by the petitioner to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendants who died prior to the presentation of the suit. Therefore, I do not find anything to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. All these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application namely petition(s) to amend the cause title to implead the legal representatives of the deceased defendants. If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered subject to law of limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.