JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against an order of the Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 31.1.1983 passed on an application of the plaintiff under order 22 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. Stated in short, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Devi Singh (who died during the pendency of the suit and now represented by his widow, daughter etc.) instituted a suit for declaration of title, perpetual prohibitory injunction and recovery of possession against 4 defendants Rameshwar Prasad, Takhat Singh, Badadur Singh and Sohan Kanwar. It was alleged that Takhat Singh had no right or interest or title to transfer the property in dispute to defendant No. 1 Rameshwar Prasad. It was also alleged that Bhawani Singh who is son of Devi Singh went in adoption to defendant Takhat Singh. Plaintiff Devi Singh passed away during the pendency of the suit and on his death his widow Smt. Roop Kanwar and daughter Smt.Vallabh Kanwar were substituted as plaintiffs in his place and his natural son Bhawani Singh was impleaded as one of the proforma defendants This was done on an application moved by Smt. Roop Kanwar and Smt. Vallabh Kanwar. The suit continued and Vallabh Kanwar also died. Her legal representatives, who were her husband, 2 sons and 5 daughters were substituted in her place. The main defendant Takhat Singh also passed away on 5-5-70. The substituted plaintiffs moved an application that Bhawani Singh who is the adopted son of Takhat Singh be substituted in his place. It was also prayed that necessary amendments in the plaint be permitted to be made on account of the result flowing from the substitution of Bhawani Singh in place of the defendant Takhat Singh. This application was opposed by defendant Rameshwar Prasad who is the revision petitioner before me. The trial court raised three questions for decision, one of which is whether Bhawani Singh is the adopted son of late the Takhat Singh". The trial court recorded the evidence of the parties and heard them. By the impugned order he allowed the plaintiff's application and substituted Bhawani Singh in place of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh. The learned Civil Judge did so taking the view that Bhawani Singh was the adopted son of Takhat Singh. Aggrieved against the said order, the defendant Rameshwar Prasad has come up in revision. 3. By the impugned order he allowed the plaintiff's application and substituted Bhawani Singh in place of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh. The learned Civil Judge did so taking the view that Bhawani Singh was the adopted son of Takhat Singh. Aggrieved against the said order, the defendant Rameshwar Prasad has come up in revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. It was argued by Shri Lodha learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that the question whether Bhawani Singh was the adopted son of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh should not have been decided in a proceeding under order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. The question of Bhawani Singh's adoption was involved as one of the main points of dispute in the suit itself. His fear is that the trial court will take the question as to whether Bhawani Singh is the adopted son of Takhat Singh finally decided by this impugned order. He has further argued that the impugned order should not be taken to have decided the question of adoption finely for all times. The evidence on adoption recorded by the trial court should be confined only for the purposes of order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. Mr. Keshote learned counsel for the non-petitioners contested this position. According to him both the parties have led evidence on the question whether Bhawani Singh is the adopted son of Takhat Singh. As such the finding of the trial court should not be confined only fur the purpose of order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. The adoption should be taken to have been finally decided. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration and I am of the opinion that the contention raised by Mr. Lodha on behalf of the revision-petitioner has much substance. 5. The question before the trial court was to decide as to who was the legal representative of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh. It was only to find out whether there is any legal representative of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh. He conducted an enquiry to decide the question of legal representative under order 22 Rule 5 of the Cavil Procedure Code. It was only to find out whether there is any legal representative of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh. He conducted an enquiry to decide the question of legal representative under order 22 Rule 5 of the Cavil Procedure Code. Rule 5 empowers rather enjoins a duty on the court as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant The trial court recorded the evidence of the parties only for the purpose of deciding the question of legal representative under Rule 5 of Order 22 C.P.C. A finding in a proceeding under Order 22 Rule 5 C.P.C. cannot operate as res judicata as to where the legal representative is or is not the heir of the deceased plaintiff or deceased defendant. A few authorities may be noticed in this connection. In Daulat Ram v. Mst. Meera & Ors. A.I.R. 1941 Lahore 142 it was observed: "A decision under R. 5 of O. 22 should be limited to the purpose of carrying on the suit and cannot have the effect of conferring any right to heirship or to property." The decision under R. 5 of O. 22 does not operate as res judicata." 6. In Suraj Mani and another v. Kishori Lal A.I.R. 1976 H.P. 74 it was observed : 'The definition of legal representative' in Section 2 (11) is very wide. It will include a person who seeks to represent the estate of a deceased person on the basis of a will said to b. executed by the deceased in his favour. The estate will be sufficiently represented by such a person." "Where the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff is brought on record, the decision to do so under O.22, R.5 must be limited to the purpose of carrying on the suit and cannot have the effect of conferring any right to heirship or to property. 7. The same view was reiterated in (3) A.I.R. 1963 Patna 390. 8. No authority taking a contrary view has been brought to my notice by Mr. Keshote learned counsel for the non-petitioners. I find myself in complete agreement with a view taken in the above decisions by the High Courts of Lahore and Himachal Pradesh. The position, therefore, boils to this that an order passed under order 22 Rule 5 C.P.C. should be confined for the purpose of carrying on the suit. Keshote learned counsel for the non-petitioners. I find myself in complete agreement with a view taken in the above decisions by the High Courts of Lahore and Himachal Pradesh. The position, therefore, boils to this that an order passed under order 22 Rule 5 C.P.C. should be confined for the purpose of carrying on the suit. An order under 22 Rule 5 simply decides the question whether one is legal representative or not of the deceased plaintiff or defendant. Such an order does not decide the question as to whether the legal representative has any right of heirship or any right to the property. The impugned order will, therefore, not operate as res-judicata on the question whether Bhawani Singh was adopted by the deceased Takhat Singh. If the question of this adoption is there in the suit, it will have to be decided afresh and the impugned order will not stand as impediment or obstacle nor will it operate as res judicata. 9. It was contended by Mr. Lodha that Bhawani Singh should not be allowed to repudiate the written statement filed by the deceased defendant Takhat Singh. It was argued that Bhawani Singh is bound by the written statement filed by Takhat Singh and he cannot drift from it. It was however, pointed out by Mr. Keshote learned counsel for the non-petitioners that Bhawani Singh when he was impleaded as a proforma defendant had filed his written statement. In that written statement he had challenged the authority of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh to alienate property in dispute. He is, therefore, not bound by the written statement filed by Takhat Singh. 10. Admittedly Bhawani Singh has two status namely (1) as a proforma defendant being the natural son of the deceased plaintiff Devi Singh and (2) as the main defendant on account of his substitution in place of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh as his adopted son. The status of Bhawani Singh is thus unusual. 11. A legal representative must proceed wish the litigation from the stage where the death of the plaintiff or defendant had taken place. He is bound by the pleadings of his predecessor in whose place he has been substituted. A legal representative substituted under order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. cannot set up a new or individual right. 11. A legal representative must proceed wish the litigation from the stage where the death of the plaintiff or defendant had taken place. He is bound by the pleadings of his predecessor in whose place he has been substituted. A legal representative substituted under order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. cannot set up a new or individual right. He cannot take up a new and inconsistent plea or a plea contrary to the one taken up by the contrary to the one taken up by deceased. He thus stands in the shoes of the deceased plaintiff or defendant as the case may be and must accept the position adopted by his predecessor that is the deceased plaintiff or the deceased defendant. 12. Bhawani Singh is, therefore, bound by the written statement filed by the deceased Takhat Singh. He cannot be allowed to repudiate the written statement filed by Takhat Singh. In Thavazhi Karnavan v. Sankunni A.I.R. 1935 Madras 52 , the learned Single Judge has observed : "A party who cones into the suit as the legal representative of another party cannot be allowed to depart from or vary or contradict the attitude taken up by the party whose legal representative he is, it is obvious that if he were permitted to do so, it would be impossible to conduct any litigation where legal representatives come in." 13. In Babulal v. Jeshankar A.I.R. 1972 Calcutta 494 the following view has been expressed : "A legal representative substituted in place of a deceased defendant cannot be permitted to make out a new case afresh in another written statement at this stage. He has to take up the suit at the stage at which it was left when the original party died and to continue it. The only right he has is to make a defence appropriate to his character as a legal representative of the deceased defendant. His case is on a different footing than the addition of a new defendant which is governed by O. 1 R. 10(iv). Therefore, only the order for substitution would be served on the substituted defendant and no fresh writ of summons could be issued for service on the substituted defendant." 14. The substituted defendant Bhawani Singh is, therefore, bound by the written statement filed by Takhat Singh. 15. Therefore, only the order for substitution would be served on the substituted defendant and no fresh writ of summons could be issued for service on the substituted defendant." 14. The substituted defendant Bhawani Singh is, therefore, bound by the written statement filed by Takhat Singh. 15. That however, does not end the matter, Bhawani Singh was also impleaded as a proforma defendant on the death of his natural father Devi Singh who had filed the suit. He has thus dual capacity. It would be proper to mention here that Bhawani Singh had filed his written statement in his capacity as a proforma defendant and in that written statement he has stated that he is the adopted son of Takhat Singh. It would also be proper to mention simultaneously, here that the defendant Takhat Singh in his written statement categorically denied that Bhawani Singh was his adopted son or that he had ever adopted Bhawani Singh as his son. 16. Thus, Bhawani Singh stands in on uneasy and uncomfortable position. On the one hand he is bound by the written statement filed by Takhat Singh and on the other hand he is also bound by the written statement filed by him in his capacity as the proforma defendant. Both the written statements are at variance and contradictory. It will be, therefore, difficult for Bhawani Singh as to how he maintains his dual capacity. Any way it is a matter which will arise during the trial of this suit. Nothing can be said or observed at this stage. 17. In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed with the observations that the impugned order passed under Order 22 Rule 5 C.P.C. will he limited and restricted to the purpose of carrying on the suit and will not confer any right on Bhawani Singh to heirship of the deceased Takhat Singh. The impugned order will not be treated to create any res judicata to decide the question whether Bhawani Singh is the adopted son of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh. Bhawani Singh will not repudiate the written statement filed by the deceased defendant Takhat Singh. The impugned order will stand modified in the manner indicated above. No order as to costs.Revision party allowed. *******