JUDGMENT:- Satyeshwar Roy, J. Mostt, Rajban claiming herself to be the owner of the property in question filed Title Suit No. 73 of 1966 for eviction of opposite party no. 1. The suit was decreed. Opposite Party No.1. filed Title Appeal No. 47 of 1971. During the pendency of the appeal, Mostt. Rajban died. Opposite Party No. 1 filed an application for substitution of eighteen persons in place of deceased Mostt. Rajban as her legal representatives. In the petition it was averred by opposite party no. 1 that Mostt Rajban died issueless and he was unable to find out her heirs. Opposite party No. 1. therefore, prayed for substituting all the eighteen persons mentioned in her application as legal representative of Mostt. Rajban. By order dated 5.6.1976, the appellate court before whom Title Appeal No. 47 of 1971 was pending for hearing ordered for substituting those eighteen persons in place of Most Rajban and also ordered for issuing notices on them. 2. The lower appellate court thereafter started an enquiry under order XXII Ruls 5 of the Code of Civil procedure (the Code) on 3.12.1980. By order dated 11th Septemper, 1987, the lower appellate court held that the petitioners although they were out of eighteen persons who were sought to be substituted as legal representatives are not the heirs of mostt. Rajban. That order is the subject matter of this civil revision application. 3. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that once the court below by order dated 5. 6. 1976 ordered for substituting the eighteen persons named in the petition filed by opposite party no. 1 as legal representatives of Most. Rajban, the court below had no jurisdiction to make any enquiry to determine that question in purported exercise of power under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code. According to the learned counsel, an enquiry for determining as to who was the legal representative should have preceded the order dated 5.6.1976. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the order for substituting eighteen parsons as legal representatives of Mositt. Rajban by order dated 5. 6. 1976 was merely tentative as opposite party no. 1 in his application stated that he could not find out as to who were the legal representatives of Mostt. Rajban. Therefore, he had named eighteen persons. 4. 1 and 2 submitted that the order for substituting eighteen parsons as legal representatives of Mositt. Rajban by order dated 5. 6. 1976 was merely tentative as opposite party no. 1 in his application stated that he could not find out as to who were the legal representatives of Mostt. Rajban. Therefore, he had named eighteen persons. 4. Power of the court to substitute legal representative of the plaintiff and of the defendant has been provided in Rule. 3 and 4 respectively of order XXII. If in the event dispute arose as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or of a deceased defendant, such question shall have to be determined by the court under Rule 5. It is clear from the provisions noticed therein that once that question is determined by court the same cannot be reopened in that lis. This has been so held in Sheopujan Singh and another VS. Chandi Sing & ors : AIR 1951 Patna 283 : 5. In this case the court below after ordering for substituting eighteen persons as legal representatives of Mostt. Rajban by order dated 5. 6. 1976, started enquiry under Rule 5 after notices in the substitution matter were served on the proposed legal representatives. The court below was required to do this because although opposite party no. 1 had stated in his application that he could not find out as to who were the legal representatives of Mostt. Rajban and named eighteen persons. It appears from the order impugned that the question as to whether all eighteen persons were legal representative of Mostt. Rajban or not arose after notice was served in the substitution matter. The enquiry as proposed under Rule 5 was started by the court below on 3. 12. 1980. A large number of witnesses were examined on" behalf of the parties. By order dated 11. 9. 1987, the court below held that as many as ten persons out of eighteen persons named in tile petition filed by opposite Party no. 1 did oat come forward to claim that they were also the legal repre3entatives of Mostt. Rajbhan. One Mahesh Prasad was named as one of the persons out of eighteen. He died during the course of enquiry, the petitioners being his widow, sons and daughters were substituted in his place. 1 did oat come forward to claim that they were also the legal repre3entatives of Mostt. Rajbhan. One Mahesh Prasad was named as one of the persons out of eighteen. He died during the course of enquiry, the petitioners being his widow, sons and daughters were substituted in his place. The court below held that Mahesh Prasad was not the legal representative of Mostt. Rajban; his claim having been rejected, the claim of his heirs was also rejected. 6. It may be noticed that almost seven years when the enquiry was being conducted to determine who were the legal representatives of Mostt. Rajban, no objection have been raised by Mahesh Prasad, the predecessor of the petitioners or by the petitioners after the death of Mahesh Prasad that as order has already been passed on 5. 6.1976, that question cannot be determined again. when the question of substituting of legal representative arise the proper procedure that the court should follow is to issue notice in the substitution matter and if no objection is filed, to pass appropriate final order in that question. It appears that in the appeal, the court below ordered for substitution of eighteen persons and then ordered for issuance of notices to them. That order was passed without determining as to who were the legal representatives. The order passed by the appellate court on 5. 6. 1976 might have been irregular but surely it did not take away the jurisdiction of the court below to determine the question as to who were the legal representatives of Mostt. Rajban as after service of notice on her proposed legal representatives, that question arose. If after service of notice on the proposed legal representatives no objection had been raised, then it may be urged that as no objection was raised after notice was served on the legal representatives, the question as to who were the legal representatives could not have been determined under Rule 5. 7. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the finding recorded by the court below that Mahesh Prasad was not one of the legal representatives of Mostt. Rajban cannot be sustained and in support of this submission, learned counsel tried to place the evidence of the witnesses. 8. In this application, the Court cannot interfere with the finding of facts by reappraising the evidence adduced by the parties. Rajban cannot be sustained and in support of this submission, learned counsel tried to place the evidence of the witnesses. 8. In this application, the Court cannot interfere with the finding of facts by reappraising the evidence adduced by the parties. It has been held by this Court that the issue of legal representatives determined under Order XXII Rull 5 is not an issue in the suit and the finding cannot operate as res-judicata. Reference may by made in Ran Char Prasad Vs. Krishna Singh: AIR 1951 Patna 536: and Dukh Haran Tewary and others Vs. Dulhin Bihasa Kuer and another: AIR 1963 Patna 390 : 9. I may notice that the court below was aware of this legal position as is evidenced by its observation in last paragraph of its order dated 11. 9. 1987. which is impugned in this civil revision application. 10. For the reasons aforesaid it is held that there is no merit in the civil revision application and the same is dismissed: but in the facts and circumstances of the case shall make no order as to costs. As. Revision dismissed.