Short Note : The suit out of which the present petition of revision, arises was filed by the non-petitioner Subalal against the sole defendant Mst. Kalawati. Mst. Kalawati died during the pendency of the suit on 19-5-1974. The non-petitioner Subalal, therefore, filed an application on 16-8-1974 for bringing her legal representatives on record. Since some of the proposed legal representatives were minors, a separate application was filed for appointment of their guardian ad-litem. Prior to that, on 5-8-1974, the petitioner Ramakant, one of the proposed legal representatives, filed an application urging that he alone is the legal representative under a will executed by the deceased. The non-petitioner Subalal, however, disputed his claim. It was also opposed by some of the other proposed legal representatives. The matter came up for hearing before the learned Judge of the trial Court on 22-12-1975. It was expected that he would enquire into and determine as to who is/are legal representatives of the deceased. What he did, however, was to implead all the alleged legal representatives. Hence this revision by the petitioner Ramakant. Held: It will be seen that when a dispute arises as to who is the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or defendant, that question has to be determined by the Court before proceeding further with the suit. The Court cannot absolve itself from the duty cast on it by the statute in this behalf by resorting to the practice of impleading all the alleged legal representatives and thus leaving the matter open [(See Ramprakash and another v. Smt. Shankari and others, AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 293.] It is all too evident here that there was a serious dispute between all concerned as to who are the legal representative of the deceased. That being so, it was the bounden duty of the trial Court to decide the matter. Since some of the proposed legal representatives were minors, it was also necessary to appoint guardian-ad-litem and then determine the question as who are the legal representatives of the deceased, Mst. Kalawati. This was not done. The impugned Order 22-12-1775 of the lower Court is, therefore, set aside with a direction that the question as respects the lagal representative of the deceased Mst. Kalawati be determined in the light of the above remarks. AIR 1968 Punj. and Har. 293, relied on. Revision allowed.