JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jodhpur passed in Civil Suit No. 123/76 rejecting the petitioner's application moved under order 47 rule 1 read with section 151, C.P.C. The. facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiffs Shyamlal (non-petitioner no.1), Smt. Basti (non-petitioner no.2) and late Kesulal filed suit No. 123 ofl976 for redemption of mortgagee. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff Kesulal died on December 6,1984. An application was moved under Order 22 rule 3, C.P.C. for bringing his mother Smt. Basti Bai and his widow Smt. Jabbu Bai on record. While this application was pending, the petitioner Mahesh Chandra moved an application under Order 22 rule 3, C.P.C. stating that he was adopted by the deceased Kesulal during his life time as his son and a will has also been left in his favour in respect of the suit property, he is the sole heir and legal representative of Kesulal, the plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 want to deprive him of his properties, they did not even disclose him about the pendency of the suit and he came to know about it as late as on October 1, 1985 and praying that his name be substituted in place of the deceased Kesulal. The petitioner filed his affidavit only in support of his application. Neither the adoption deed nor the will set up him was filed. Reply was also filed by the plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 seriously opposing the application and stating that the petitioner Mahesh Chandra was never adopted by Late Kesulal, no consent for adoption of any child was ever given by his widow Smt. Jabbu Bai, no will has been left in favour of the petitioner in respect of any property, all the facts alleged in the application arc totally false and concocted and the application has been moved with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. In support of this reply, affidavits of plaintiff Shyamlal, Kesulal's widow Jabbu Bai and Kesulal's nephew Surendra Kumar were filed. In support of this reply, affidavits of plaintiff Shyamlal, Kesulal's widow Jabbu Bai and Kesulal's nephew Surendra Kumar were filed. After hearing the applicant Mahesh Chandra and the par- lies, the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner Mahesh Chand by its order dated September 25,1987 holding that the petitioner Mahesh Chand has utterly failed to show even prima facie that he was adopted by late Kesulal and a will in respect of the suit property has been left in his favour. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 47 rule 1 read with Section 151, C.C.P. for reviewing the aforesaid order dated September 25,1987 on the ground that the case was fixed for deciding the procedure to be adopted for disposing of the applications moved under Order 22 rule 3, C.P.C. and the trial court decided the petitioner's application only without deciding the procedure and without deciding the other applications. After hearing the parties and the petitioner Mahesh Chand, the trial court dismissed this application by its order dated May 19, 1989 which has been challenged in this revision petition. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that dates were being fixed by the trial court for deciding the procedure to be adopted for deciding the applications moved under Order 22 rule 3, C.P.C. and without deciding it the application of the petitioner moved under Order 22 rule 3, C.P.C. was only decided and the trial court did not consider this aspect of the case while passing the impugned order.The learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioners duly supported the learned counsel' for the petitioner.In reply, it has been contended by die learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner that the said application under Order 22 rule 3, C.P.C. was got moved by the defendant-non-petitioners by the petitioner Mahesh Chander with a view to delay the disposal of the suit and to create complications in it. He further contended that die provisions of Order 22 rule 5, C.P.C. do noil require that all applications should be decided simultaneously, no elaborate procedure is required to be adopted in such applications and the learned trial court did not commit any error in first deciding the application of the petitioner Mahesh Chand. He lastly contended that there existed no ground for reviewing the well written order dated September 25, 1987. 5. He lastly contended that there existed no ground for reviewing the well written order dated September 25, 1987. 5. There is absolutely no substance in the revision petition. The relevant portion of Order 22 rule 5, C.P.C. runs as under:- "5. Determination of question as to legal representative - Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court." The petitioner Mahesh Chand moved an application under Order 22 rule 3, C.P.C. for being impleaded as a party in place of deceased Kesulal with the allegations that he was adopted by him as his son and he has also left a will in his favour in respect of the suit property. Thus the question before the trial court was, whether the petitioner Mahesh Chand is or is not the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff Kesulal. The above quoted provisions clearly provide that such question shall be determined by the Court. They do not require that if there are more than one applications, all applications should simultaneously be decided. It is in the discretion of the court to decide applications individually or simultaneously. Under the facts and circumstances of a case, applications may independently or simultaneously be decided. Shri Sunder Lal Batra, Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur has held that the said claim put forward by the petitioner Mahesh Chand is false, he was not adopted by deceased Kesulal, he (deceased Kesulal) has not left a will in Mahesh Chand's favour and as such Mahesh Chand is not a legal representative of late Kesulal. Neither original will and adoption-deed nor their copies were filed by the petitioner Mahesh Chand in support of his application. It he would have been actually adopted by late Kesulal, he would have been aware of the suit and would have moved the said application under Order 22 rule 3, C.P.C. immediately after his death and would not have moved after a delay of about 10 months. The petitioner Mahesh Chand filed his affidavits only in support of his application and they were duly controverted by the affidavits of the deceased's elder brother Shyamlal, his widow Jammu Bai and his nephew Surendra Kumar. The petitioner Mahesh Chand filed his affidavits only in support of his application and they were duly controverted by the affidavits of the deceased's elder brother Shyamlal, his widow Jammu Bai and his nephew Surendra Kumar. The petitioner did not disclose in his application as to when he was adopted and also that all necessary ceremonies were performed. The date of the will has also not been mentioned in it. In view of these facts and circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly observed:- "Prathi Mahesh Ka Yeh Kehna Ki Kesulal He Usae Gode Liya Tha, Asatye Avem Mithya Uai" 6. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner that the case was fixed for deciding the procedure to be adopted for deciding the applications moved under Order 22 rule 3, C.P.C. and the application of the petitioner was decided. It is clear from the order dated September 25, 1987 that the learned counsel for the petitioner and also of all parties addressed the trial court at length on the said application of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show' as to how' the petitioner has been prejudiced by it particularly when the alleged adoption deed and will were not even file. It is well settled law that no elaborate enquiry is necessary under Order 22 rule 5, C.P.C. for deciding the question whether any person is legal representative of the deceased plaintiff or defendant. It has to be determined upon the relevant material on record and this has been done in this case. There was absolutely no ground for recalling the order dated September 25, 1987. There is no infirmity in the order dated May 19, 1989, refusing to recall the said order. 7. The aforesaid facts and circumstances greatly support the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioners that the defendant-non-petitioner have got moved the said application by the petitioner Mahesh Chand with a view to delay the disposal of the suit and to create complications in it. The suit is pending since 1976. It is therefore, necessary to direct the trial court to give to priority in its disposal. 8. The suit is pending since 1976. It is therefore, necessary to direct the trial court to give to priority in its disposal. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.500/ The trial court is directed to give top priority in the disposal of the suit.Petition dismissed. *******