Plaintiff No.2 who has filed a reply. It was stated in the said reply that the Plaintiff No.2 is in occupation of the bungalow in question which is owned by the Plaintiff No.1 and which bungalow was renovated in the year 20032004, by the Plaintiff No.2. It was also stated in the said reply that the Suit is at the stage where the witness of the Plaintiffs have been cross examined by the Defendants and at no time earlier the objection was taken to the Plaintiff No.2 prosecuting the Suit. The Trial Court considered the said application Exhibit 89 and has by the impugned order dated 5-1-2013 has rejected the same. The Trial Court adverted to the averments in the plaint. Though it has been stated that the Plaintiff No.2 is the adopted son of Plaintiff No.1 it has also been stated that the house in question is occupied by the families of the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. The Suit in question is in respect of the road used by the Plaintiffs for ingress and egress to the house occupied by them. The Trial Court by considering the aforesaid facts reached a conclusion that the cause of action to prosecute the suit survives to the Plaintiff No.2. The Trial Court was of the view that whether the Plaintiff No.2 as the surviving Plaintiff would be entitled to the injunction or whether the Plaintiff No.2 can claim to be adopted son of the Plaintiff No.1 would be matters which can be decided at the trial of the Suit. However, the Trial Court observed that it could not be said that the
