R. K. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision filed by the legal representatives of the objector Surjuprasad against the order dated 4-11-87 passed in probate Case No. 1/87 by the District Judge, Indore whereby the learned District Judge has granted time to the non-applicant Ramkumaribai to bring the legal representatives of deceased objector Surjuprasad on record without deciding the question of abatement. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts giving rise to this revision, briefly stated, are as follows :- The non-applicant Ramkumaribai alleging a will dated 1-12-68 executed in her favour by the father of the objector Surjuprasad, applied for probate (Probate Case No. 6/70) in the court of Additional District Judge, Indore without impleading Surjuprasad as a party-non-applicant and obtained probate of the said will. When the non-applicant Ramkumaribai filed Civil Suit No. 41/70 for possession of the property on the basis of the probate, obtained as aforesaid, Surjuprasad came to have knowledge about the earlier probate proceedings in the Case No. 6/70 which culminated in the grant of probate in favour of Ramkumaribai. Surjuprasad then filed an application dated 15-3-1971 for revocation of the said probate. After inquiry, the application for revocation was allowed on 25-10-72 and the probate in favour of Ramkumaribai was set aside in the probate case No. 6/70, on the finding that the citation was not issued to Surjuprasad, son of the deceased. It was also held in the order dated 25-10-72 that the execution of the will by the deceased Ramawatar was not proved and that the deceased Ramawatar was not in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the will. Being aggrieved by the order of revocation of the will, the respondent Ramkumaribai field a Miscellaneous Appeal (No. 10/73) in this Court. This Court while maintaining the order of revocation of probate in absence of issuance of citation to Surjuprasad, son of the deceased, set aside the further conclusions reached by the learned Addl. District Judge and directed that the court below shall consider afresh after giving opportunity to the parties about the will in presence of both the parties. ( 3 ) AFTER remand of the case, to the learned Lower Court,, the objector Surjuprasad adduced his evidence by examining himself and his witnesses Mangilal and Ramnath. District Judge and directed that the court below shall consider afresh after giving opportunity to the parties about the will in presence of both the parties. ( 3 ) AFTER remand of the case, to the learned Lower Court,, the objector Surjuprasad adduced his evidence by examining himself and his witnesses Mangilal and Ramnath. Thereafter, on 9-5-87, Surjuprasad died and the fact of his death was intimated by his counsel to the Court on 24-6-87 and the Court directed the respondent-applicant Ramkumaribai to take legal steps. within time. Thereafter, time was sought by the respondent-applicant on three occasions for bringing the legal representatives of Surjuprasad on record and then on 5-10-87, the respondent-applicant sought further time on the ground that she could not gather information about the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad. Time was further sought and granted on 2-11-87 up to 4-11-87. On 4-11-87, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the deceased Surjuprasad that the respondent-applicant's application for grant of probate had abated since the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad, son of the testator had not been brought on record within time. But the learned lower Court granted fifteen days time to the respondent-applicant for brining the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad on record. On 20-11-87, an application under O. 22 R. 4 of the Civil P. C. was submitted by the respondent-applicant and notices were directed to be issued to the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad on 23-11-87. Being aggrieved by the order dated 4-11-87 the petitioners who are legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad being his widow and daughter have filed this revision. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the probate case the deceased Surjuprasad, son of Ramawatar, testator of the alleged will, was a necessary party and on his death the failure of the respondent-applicant to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad on record within the prescribed period of limitation has resulted in abatement of the application for grant of probate in favour of the respondent-applicant who has set up the will against the natural heir Surjuprasad, son of the testator. ( 5 ) IT has been contended that the learned Lower Court has wrongly granted fifteen days' further time by the impugned order dated 4-11-87. ( 5 ) IT has been contended that the learned Lower Court has wrongly granted fifteen days' further time by the impugned order dated 4-11-87. It has been pointed out from the order-sheet of the probate case that on intimation of death of the deceased Surjuprasad by his counsel to the Court on 24-6-87, the respondent-applicant had been directed to take legal steps within time but she had failed to do so and on 4-11-87 when it was pointed out to the Court that the Probate Case had abated for failure of respondent-applicant to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad on record the learned Lower Court without there being any application explaining sufficient cause for delay, granted the respondent-applicant fifteen days time for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad on record. ( 6 ) IT has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Lower Court has recorded in the order-sheet dated 4-11-87 that the deceased Surjuprasad who was admittedly the son of the testator Ramawatar, was a necessary party in the case and that the Code of Civil. Procedure was applicable to the proceedings of Probate Case. It has also been recorded in said order-sheet that the applicant Ramkumaribai was expected to know the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad having regard to the facts on the case. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicant has submitted that the objector Surjuprasad was not a necessary party in the Probate Case and after his death it was not necessary for the non-applicant Ramkumaribai to bring the legal representatives of deceased Surjuprasad on record. I do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel. The objector Surju : 1prasad was son of Ramawatar and the non-applicant has set up a will allegedly executed by Ramawatar. That will must be proved in the presence of the objector, son of Ramawatar and after his death in the presence of his legal representatives since they are natural heirs entitled to succeed to the property of Ramawatar by inheritance. That will must be proved in the presence of the objector, son of Ramawatar and after his death in the presence of his legal representatives since they are natural heirs entitled to succeed to the property of Ramawatar by inheritance. If the non-applicant alleges a will in her favour so as to divert natural succession to the property from the natural heirs of Ramawatar to herself on the basis of the will, she must prove the will in her favour against the right to inheritance naturally vesting in Ramawatar's son Surjuprasad and after his death in the petitioners who are the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad. The real lis in the probate proceedings is, therefore, between the non-applicant and the natural heirs of Ramawatar. It is, therefore, not correct to say that it is not obligatory on the non-applicant to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Surjuprasad on record. Section 268 of the Indian Succession Act provides that proceedings of the Court of the District Judge in relation to granting of probate shall be regulated, so far as the circumstances of the case permit, by the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure must, therefore, to be restored to in the circumstances of the present case, where real lis is between the non-applicant who proposes to establish a will against the natural heir namely, Surjuprasad and after his death the petitioners, being his legal representatives. ( 8 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside inasmuch as it extends time of fifteen days without the court considering the question of sufficient cause. The learned Lower Court could have postponed the consideration of question of abatement to a stage when the non-applicant would have filed an application for bringing the legal representatives on record along with an application for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay. But it could not have extended time for bringing the legal representatives on record without setting aside abatement, which it could do only on sufficient cause having been shown by the non-applicant on a proper application in that behalf. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is allowed. But it could not have extended time for bringing the legal representatives on record without setting aside abatement, which it could do only on sufficient cause having been shown by the non-applicant on a proper application in that behalf. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside in so far as it extends time for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Surjuprasad on record without there being any application for setting aside abatement on sufficient cause. The case is remanded to the learned Lower Court for deciding the question of abatement in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the respondent to make appropriate applications and to the petitioners to submit their replies thereto. The parties are directed to remain present before the learned Lower Court on 21-8-89. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .