K. R. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) THE original plaintiff Rukshmaniben had filed a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 18 of 1990 against her daughter-in-law namely Kanchanben Ratilal the defendant No. 1 for a declaration that she is the owner of the ornaments lying in the Gujarat Safe Deposit Com- pany Account No. 5249 for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to hand over the key of the locker permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering the plaintiff operating the locker and in the alternative if the defendant No. 1 has misappropriated the ornaments then for a decree in the sum of Rs. 32 0 being the value of the ornaments. It was also claimed by way of mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 1 to hand over the shares and also for taking accounts from the defendant No. 1 in connection who the dividend recovered by her on the said shares and also of the bonus shares and further directing defendant No. 1 to hand over dividend and the bonus shares recovered by her. ( 2 ) AS per the case of the plaintiff in the said suit the plaintiff had received the ornaments as described in the plaint at the time of partition on 26/03/1959 as an absolute owner and the said ornaments were her Stridhan property however some ornaments wore given to her by her husband and from her parents wide; (sic) that the said ornaments have been deposited in the said deposit account and the name of her son was also added as joint account holder for conven- ience. It is also her case that after the death of her son-Ratilal the name of her grandson i. e. the present respondent No. 2 was added so that she may not find it difficult to open the account as she was unable to sign Now there is no dispute regarding the fact that defendant No. 1- Kanchan- ben Ratilal had expired during the pendency of the suit ( 3 ) THE original plaintiff-Rukshamaniben had expired on 5/06/1984 i. e. during the pendency of the suit and therefore her son Champaklal the petitioner herein vide application Exh 108 dated 30/07/1984 applied to be joined as the heir and legal representative of the deceased- plaintiff staling therein that as per the Will executed by the deceased on 21/11/1974 he has been made the legal representative. ( 4 ) THE respondent resisted the said application by filing reply wherein it was inter alia denied what the petitioner is the sole heir and legal representative of the deceased. It was also denied that the Will was made in sound state of mind and body The learned trail Court ulti- mately allowed the said application on merits and the petitioner carried out the said amend- ment also. As can be seen from the impugned order the trial Court did not frame any issues in the proceedings and the parties also led evidence in absence of the issues. It is only when the case was fixed for arguments that the said mistake came to the notice of the Court There- upon the trial Court asked the parties to suggest issues and accordingly the respondent suggested issues while the petitioner did not choose to do so. On the basis of the issues suggested by the respondent the trial Court framed issues which are as under:1 Whether the present suit is legally maintainable in law ?2 Whether the plaintiff proves that deceased Bai Rukshamaniben widow of Ranchhoddas Nathubhai made a Will in sound disposing slate of mind and body on 21-11-1979. If yes whether she had a right to make a Will ?3 Whether the plaintiff proves that Bai Rukshamaniben widow of Ranchhoddas Nathubhai had deposited the ornaments metioned in para-6 of the plaint and had shares a securities as mentioned in the plaint ? If yes whether she had a right to make a Will ?3 Whether the plaintiff proves that Bai Rukshamaniben widow of Ranchhoddas Nathubhai had deposited the ornaments metioned in para-6 of the plaint and had shares a securities as mentioned in the plaint ? If ye whether plaintiff further proves that they we deposited in locker or were with defendant No as alleged ?4 Whether the plaintiff proves that all the ornaments in the locker exclusively belongs Bai Rukshamaniben - wife of Ranchhoddas Nathubhai as alleged ?5 Whether defendants are entitled to claim amounts spent after Bai Rukshamaniben widow of Ranchhoddas Nathubhai for her maintenance medical treatment clothing etc. If yes what amount defendants are entitled to ?6 Whether the plaintiff proves that ornaments weighing 32. 1 tolas of gold had been given to Bai Rukshmaniben widow of Rancchoddas Nathubhai on 26 ?7 Whether plaintiff further proves that Bai Rukshmaniben widow of Rancchoddas Nathubhai had been given five tolas of gold necklace by her husband and had received gold bracelet weig- ing two tolas and gold buttons given to her husband for wearing only as alleged ?8 Whether defendants prove the allegations made in paras 5 6 and 7 of the written statement ?9 Whether the defendants are liable to a count ?10 Whether the alleged Will of Bai Rukshmaniben widow or Ranchhoddas Nathubhai is a forged and got up Will or is a Will got up coercein undue influence etc. as alleged and that she was not in sound state of mind and body as alleged ? Whether she had no authority to make Will ?11 Whether plaintiff is entitled to any relief? If yes what directions to the Commissioner ?12 What decree ?13 What order ?thereafter the petitioner filed application Exh 115 dated 6/11/1984 requesting the Court to delete the issues No 1 2 5 6 7 and 10 as according to the petitioner these issues were immaterial for the purpose of deciding the real question in controversy between the parties The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties rejected the said application on 16/01/1985 Hence the present Revision Application. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Mrs. Bela Yagnik appearing for Miss V P Shah submitted before me that the trial Court has committed an illegality and/or material irregular- ity in rejection the application Exh. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Mrs. Bela Yagnik appearing for Miss V P Shah submitted before me that the trial Court has committed an illegality and/or material irregular- ity in rejection the application Exh. 115 seeking deletion of certain issues According to her the issues sought to be deleted were irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the real question in contro- versy between the parties. She further added that the trial Court has committed jurisdictional error by framing the said issues which are beyond the scope of the dispute on the other hand Mr. Anjaria appearing for Mr. S. N. Shelat on behalf of the respondents supported the order of the trial Court in toto. ( 6 ) NOW Order 14 Rule 5 deals with power of the Court to amend and strike out issues By virtue of sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 the Court may at any time before passing the decree strike out any issue that appear to be wrongly framed or introduced. Therefore it is required to decide as to in the instant case whether the Court has wrongly framed or introduced the issues in question as alleged by the petitioner Mr. Therefore it is required to decide as to in the instant case whether the Court has wrongly framed or introduced the issues in question as alleged by the petitioner Mr. Anjaria has conteded that it is not open for this Court to go into this question under the provisions of Section 115 of the Civil procedure Code as this Court has very limited jurisdiction to entertain such questions but there cannot be an absolute proposition that it is not open for this Court to deal with such questions in a Revision Application If the peti- toner can make out a case as per the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure this Court can go into such question and deal with the same In my view the petitioner herein has made out a case which would warrant me to deal with and decide the relevancy of issues in the suit Now in the instant case it is not in dispute that original plaintiff namely Rukshmaniben filed a suit to claim ornaments on the basis that she is the absolute owner of the same It was her case as per the plaint that she is in possession and absolute ownership of those ornaments by way of Stridhan property however some ornaments were received by her from her husband or from her parents side on the other hand the case of the respondent was to the effect that they are the co- owners of the ornaments and other shares and that the plaintiff is entitled to claim only limited share from the properly In substance both the parties have claimed ownership over the property in question Had Rukshmaniben not died the parties could have led evidence to claim ownership of the properly in question In fact the parties have led evidence on the basis of their respective averments in the plaint as well as the written statement With the death of Rukshmaniben problem had cropped up and the present petitioner the son of Rukshmaniben applied for being joined as party-plaintiff expressing his willingness to continue the proceedings initiated by his deceased mother He could have applied for being joined as party-plaintiff without dis- closing the fact of the Will dated 2/11/1974 executed by the deceased Rukshmaniben in his favour but instead of that the existence of the Will made by his mother has been mentioned in the application. To my mind the respondents have made a mountain out of it by challenging the genuineness of the Will and also the capacity of the deceased Rukshmaniben to execute the Will. As a result when the question of framing issues arose the respondent also suggested issues including the issue regarding the so called Will dated 21/11/1974 alleged to have been executed by deceased Rukshanmainben in favour of the present petitioner. The trial Court while proceeding with the matter cast the burden of proving the said issue on the shoulder of the present petitioner. Now as far as the framing of issues are concerned the Court shall after reading the plaint and the written statement if any ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. Now as far as the instant case is concerned the existence of the Will in respect of the properties claimed do not appear in the plaint. It is for the first time that the present petitioner in his application for being joined as plaintiff made a mention about the so called Will executed by the deceased in his favour which was strongly resisted by the respondents herein in reply to the said application. In my view cursorily mentioning of the fact regarding the execution of the Will and the reply there to cannot be considered as pleadings. In any case the petitioner herein is merely entering the shoes of his deceased mother as the plaintiff and therefore he cannot claim anything more than what his mother had claimed in the plaint. He is therefore required to prove what the original plaintiff i. e. Rukshmaniben could have proved if she could have survived. Surely Rukshma- niben could not have relied on the Will made by her much prior to the institution of the suit as she could have led other evidence to prove the title of the suit ornaments. ( 7 ) MRS. Surely Rukshma- niben could not have relied on the Will made by her much prior to the institution of the suit as she could have led other evidence to prove the title of the suit ornaments. ( 7 ) MRS. Yagnik placed reliance on the judgment given in the case of Mangat and Another v. Sujra AIR 1979 Punjab and Haryana 194 and the decision of this Court in the case of Chandanben Himatsinh Bhaila v. Bhatt Chandrakant 1986 G. L. H. (U. J) 23 wherein a view is taken that a legal representative is one who is to represent the estate of the deceased for the limited purpose of carrying on the suit and may not essentially be his heir. An enquiry in the matter. of determination of a legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 is by and large summary. The order of determina- tion under Order 22 Rule 5 is not res judicata between the parties. I am in agreement with the view expressed in the aforesaid Chandanben Himatsing Bhaila v. Bhatt Chandrakant 1986 GLH (UJ) 23 decisions. As I have already taken a view that the application made by the petitioner to be impleaded as legal representative of the deceased Rukshmaniben was granted by the trial Court after hearing the parties and therefore the petitioner is representing the estate of the de- ceased even if he has mentioned in the said application that he is representing the estate of the deceased on the basis of the Will executed by the deceased in his favour that will not preclude the respondents from challenging the fact of the petitioner being a legal representative as he is representing the estate of the deceased and even the genuineness of the Will by filing a separate proceeding. However the same cannot be challenged in the present proceedings in absence of any case put forward by the petitioner herein in this proceeding. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion the conclusion is obvious to the effect that the trial Court has erroneously framed the issues No. 2 and 10 which deal with execution of the Will by the deceased in favour of the petitioners. The trial Court could have used its discretion under Order 14 Rule 5 (2) by striking out the said issues. The trial Court could have used its discretion under Order 14 Rule 5 (2) by striking out the said issues. Regarding the rest of the issues more particularly issues No. 3 4 6 and 7 it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that they are in fact intercon- nected with each other and therefore it is not necessary to frame the same and in any case they are required to be recast. Withal expressing any opinion on the said submission it would be just and proper to direct the petitioner to apply before the trial Court to recast the same if it is advisable to do so As and when such request is made the same will be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law ( 9 ) IN the result subject to the aforesaid directions this Revision Application is partly allowed Issues No 2 and 10 framed at Exh. 115 are hereby ordered to be struck out Rule made absolute to the aforesad extent with no orders as to costs Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. .