1. The judgment-creditor had applied in time for bringing one of the representatives of David Pillai, namely, the second respondent, Swami Pillai, on record and that application was granted. That being so, the cases of Ramanuj Sewak Singh v. Ringu Lal 3 A. 517 and Krishnaji Janardan v. Murarry Rao 12 B. 48 with which we agree, show that there is no bar to the other representatives of the David Pillai, viz., respondents Nos. 3 and 4 baiag also brought on the record on the present application. We may say that we do not understand the ground on which the learned District Judge distinguishes these oases. We order that Marikrathu Ammal and Kalanithi Ammal be brought on the record as legal representatives of David Pillai and set aside the order of the District Judge with costs to be paid by the respondents.