not the representatives of the first defendant firm and are not running the same, and therefore, the said application for amendment is not necessary; that there was a Sale Agreement between the first respondent/plaintiff and the second respondent/third defendant with regard to the punja land, and since the said Sale Agreement expired, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of money based on the suit cheque issued by the second defendant, the deceased Mr.R.Athilingam, on behalf of the first defendant firm; that since the first defendant firm is not in existence and the cheque was issued on behalf of the first defendant firm, the revision petitioners/fourth to sixth defendants, who are not the representatives of the firm and are not running the same, are not liable to pay the suit claim; that since the first defendant firm was closed in the year 2013 itself and the proprietor of the same had died in the year 2016, the legal heirs of the proprietor of the firm cannot be impleaded as the legal representatives of the said firm, and hence, the proposed amendment to include the names of the revision petitioners in the cause title as proprietors of the first defendant firm is unsustainable; and that, however, the trial court, without considering the above facts, erroneously allowed the said application for amendment of the cause title.
