JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal and Srinath Sahay, JJ. - This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (w) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order of the Third Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun, dated 7-11-1988, granting the review application made by Neel Ratan Chopra, Smt. Manorama Chopra, and Km. Manika Chopra, for recalling the order dated 7-9-1988, and allowing the substitution application filed by them for being brought on record in place of the deceased Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra. 2. Briefly, the facts relevant for this appeal are that Col. Har Kishan Lal Chopra filed Suit No. 212 of 1977, in the court of the Civil Judge, Dehradun, for the following, amongst other, relief : "A. That a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the property marked by letters K W L G J I H in the plan attached to the plaint which consists of about 3 Bighas of land and 12 servant quarters, one garage, two latrines and foundations of a new cottage and fruit trees etc., being part of property No. I Old Survey Road, Dehradun." 3. Col. Har Kishan Lal Chopra alleged that he was the eldest son of R. B. Chhuttan Lal from his first wife, and that defendants 2 and 3 were his step brothers and sons of R. B. Chhuttan Lal from his second wife Smt. Kaushaliya Rani. R. B. Chhuttan Lal died on 21-8-1974. On the allegations made in the plaint, the details of which are not necessary to be stated in this judgment, he claimed the relief quoted above. In the suit, the following persons were parties : 1. Brig. Purshottam Lal Chopra. 2. Maj. Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra. 3 Neel Ratan Lal Chopra, S/o Maj. Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra. 4. L. M. Pasricha. 4. Maj. Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra filed a written statement in the suit, on 29-9-1986, the suit was decreed ex parte against the aforesaid defendants for declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of 3 Bighas of land alongwith the constructions standing thereon, which had been given to him under the family settlement. 5. Shiv Ratan Lal, thereafter, filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. He died on 8-5-1988. 5. Shiv Ratan Lal, thereafter, filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. He died on 8-5-1988. The application for setting side the decree had been moved by three persons, Neel Ratan Chopra (son), Smt. Manorama Chopra (wife), and Km. Manika Chopra (daughter). 6. The application was rejected on 7-9-1988, on the ground that as Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra had only life estate under the will of his father, on his death the same was extinguished, and that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was not maintainable. 7. The aforesaid applicants for setting aside the ex parte decree, thereafter, filed an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 151 for recalling the order dated 7-9-1988. The application was contested by the aforesaid Col. Har Kishan Lal Chopra. The court below by the impugned order dated 7-11-1988, allowed the application for review. Against (he order allowing the review application, Col. Har Kishan Lal Chopra has filed the aforesaid First Appeal from Order under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (w), C. P. C. 8. The other connected revisions have been preferred by Neel Ratan Chopra and others against the order dated 7-9-1988. All these cases have been taken up together. 9. We have heard counsel for the parties. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that as the interest of the deceased Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra got extinguished by his death, the application moved by his heirs and legal representatives was not maintainable, and was liable to be rejected. The appellants case was that as the deceased .Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra had no right left after his death in the property, his heirs and legal representatives could not continue the application for setting aside the ex parte decree moved by him. Counsel submitted that the right of Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra was personal to him and there being no estate capable of being inherited by his heirs and legal representatives, the court below rightly rejected the application on 7-9-1988. 10. For the submission made, counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in V.V. Rama Rao v. Bhagwan Narayan Rao, AIR 1954 Orissa 204. This ruling is distinguishable. In the instant case, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree had been moved by the deceased Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra. 10. For the submission made, counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in V.V. Rama Rao v. Bhagwan Narayan Rao, AIR 1954 Orissa 204. This ruling is distinguishable. In the instant case, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree had been moved by the deceased Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra. The question only was whether the application could be continued or not. While dealing with such an application, the court below was not concerned with the controversy whether Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra had any interest in the property capable of being inherited by his heirs and legal representatives or not- That was the question which would be decided in the suit. 11. When a defendant dies after an ex parte decree is made against him, his legal representatives can apply under Order IX, Rule 12, C. P. C. to set aside the same. (See Smt. Banoo and others v. Hardari Lal, AIR 1923 All 30). The reason is that a legal representative enjoys the same rights and liabilities as the original defendant. Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the exercise of rights by persons in whom they come to be vested by devolution or assignment. This is a beneficent provision and has always been held to be construed liberally so as to advance justice (see Sakila Bala v. Nirmala Sundri, AIR 1958 SC 394 ). 12. It may be right that the person in whom rights have been vested by devolution and assignment should not have rights more than what the original litigant had, nor should he be in a worse position than the person against whom the original litigation commenced. While considering the application filed by Neel Ratan Chopra and others, the court below lost sight of this aspect and incorrectly found that as the right and interest of Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra had been lost in the property, his heirs and legal representatives could not come on the record. As stated above, that was not the controversy that could be considered at that time. The learned Civil Judge has for very correct and cogent reasons recalled the order dated 7-9-1988 and reviewed the same. 13. As stated above, that was not the controversy that could be considered at that time. The learned Civil Judge has for very correct and cogent reasons recalled the order dated 7-9-1988 and reviewed the same. 13. The argument of the appellants counsel that as the deceased Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra had a life estate under the will, therefore, on his death nothing could be survived by the heirs and legal representatives, cannot be gone into by us for the reasons more than one. One of them being that even a probate of the will has not been obtained. Furthermore, we are concerned only as to whether the ex parte decree be set aside or not, and not with the rights of the parties on merits. This will be decided by the Civil Judge when the case is taken up. 14. It was stressed that Neel Ratan Chopra was since already a party in the suit, he could not have applied for substitution of his name along with his mother and sister, in place of Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra. The submission is not tenable. As an heir, his position would be different from what he had when he was impleaded as a party in the suit itself. Merely because he did not apply for setting aside of the ex parte decree in his personal capacity, is of no avail and cannot be a ground for accepting the argument that the application of Shiv Ratan Lal Chopra should have been rejected. Further, we have found no error in the judgment of the court below granting the review. 15. For what we have said above, we dismiss both the appeals. Since we have upheld the order dated 7-11-1988, by which the order dated 7-9-1988 has been set aside, the two revisions are also dismissed. The interim orders dated 5-12-1988 passed in the two appeals are withdrawn.