JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—The petitioner has come up in revision against an order passed on 15th June 1987, by Sub Judge, Nahan, allowing an application moved by the plaintiff and holding the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as the Code) for being impleaded as a party to the suit to be barred by the principles of res judicata. 2. Plaintiff Shanti Swaroop filed a suit against Smt. Indrawati, claiming a decree for declaration that he alone is owner-in-possession of the suit property and the entries in the revenue record showing defendant Indrawati to be owner as having 1/2 share therein were factually incorrect and not binding upon him. Alternatively, a decree was prayed for declaring him to have become owner of the entire suit property holding the same adversely against the defendant. It was alleged by him that his brother Ram Swaroop died in the year 1998-99 81c. issueless leaving behind the defendant as his widow. She was not entitled to succeed to any property under Hindu Law and Ram Swaroop during his life having surrendered his rights in his favour, he continued occupying the property as sole owner but name of the defendant was wrongly incorporated in the revenue records having succeeded to the estate of the deceased. She had acquired no right, title or interest and he alone was the owner. Otherwise also, having continued to remain in occupation in assertion of his rights, even if defendant had any right the same stood extinguished and his possession had ripened into full ownership by holding the property adversely. 3. The suit was contested by Indrawati, who died on 1st July 1985. On 16th August 1985, an application was moved by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code seeking to be impleaded as party to the suit alleging that Indrawati had on 21st August 1984 executed a Will pertaining to the suit property in his favour, which had been got registered before the Sub-Registrar at Delhi on 22nd August 1984 and on the basis of the said Will he had inherited the property and was liable to be impleaded as defendant to the suit. The plaintiff opposed this application by denying the due execution of the Will as also the competency of defendant Indrawati to execute the same 4. The plaintiff opposed this application by denying the due execution of the Will as also the competency of defendant Indrawati to execute the same 4. On the day, when the petitioner filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, another application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code was filed by the plaintiff stating that the sole defendant had died. After the death of Ram Swaroop, the defendant had re-married in the year 1948 one Bal Krishan Goel. Accordingly, the defendant had even lost her life interest in the property. In these circumstances, he (plaintiff) alone was the legal representative of the deceased, who was already on record and accordingly a prayer was made for deleting the name of the sole defendant. Reply to this application was filed by the petitioner, who denied the alleged re-marriage of the defendant It was also disputed by the petitioner that the plaintiff was alone the legal representative of the deceased defendant. According to the petitioner, the deceased had left other heirs also including Ramesh Kishore Bansal, Jai Kishore Bansal, Ram Kishore Bansal and Madan Kishore Bansal. In the said reply, petitioner further reiterated the fact that the Will had been executed by the deceased in his favour and he had inherited the estate of the deceased. 5. On 7th April 1986, an issue was framed by the court on the application of the petitioner that as to whether Indrawati bad executed a valid Will in his favour. If so, its effect ? 6. On 16th June 1986, on an application having been moved under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code, an additional issue was framed that in case the earlier issue was not proved, whether there are other legal representatives of the deceased? Before these applications could be decided, the plaintiff on 20th September 1986, moved an application with a prayer to dismiss the petitioners application to be barred by the principles of res-judicata alleging that in some other earlier litigation similar application moved by the petitioner claiming title to the property of the deceased on the basis of the same Will had been dismissed on 14th July 1986. This application was contested by the petitioner. This application was contested by the petitioner. On 5th January 1987, the court framed an issue on this application as to whether the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code moved by the petitioner is hit by the principles of res judkata, as alleged. 7. The trial court instead of deciding the three applications, simultaneously, proceeded to dispose of the application fifed by the plain tiff ; through the impugned order ; holding that the application moved by the petitioner for being impleaded as a party was hit by the principles of res-judicata. It is this order, which is under challenge in this civil revision. At this stage, it may, however, be noticed that after having passed the aforementioned order, which is under challenge in this revision and during the pendency of this revision, on 11th March 1988, an issue which was framed on 16th June 1986, was also decided The court held the petitioner to be the legal representative of deceased defendant being her nephew and entitled to be brought on record. Though the purpose of filing the revision petition by the petitioner stands served by an order passed by the trial Court, subsequent to the passing of the impugned order but the petitioner has prayed for a decision by this court on merits on the points urged by him in the revision petition. 8. The trial court in the impugned order held the decision given on another application of the petitioner, in earlier suit, rejecting his application to be final, binding and conclusive, thereby debarring the petitioner to reagitate the matter in any other subsequent controversy Ex. P-l is the copy of an application moved by the petitioner in Civil Suit No, 25/1 of 1983, Ram Swaroop v. Ditta Ram Indrawati was one of the defendants in the said suit The petitioner had claimed for being added in her place as defendant since, according to him Indrawati had executed a Will on 21st August 1984. Ex. P-2 is the reply to the said application filed by Shanti Swaroop plaintiff, Ex P-3 is the copy of the order passed by Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan on 14th July 1986, dismissing the said application holding that the petitioner had miserably failed to prove legal and valid execution of the Will by Indrawati in his favour. Ex. P-2 is the reply to the said application filed by Shanti Swaroop plaintiff, Ex P-3 is the copy of the order passed by Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan on 14th July 1986, dismissing the said application holding that the petitioner had miserably failed to prove legal and valid execution of the Will by Indrawati in his favour. Ex P-4 is the copy of the order passed by this Court dismissing the petitioners Civil Revision No. 206 of 1986. The trial court in the impugned order has held that the petitioner had been afforded due opportunity in the earlier proceedings to prove the Will. The petitioner availed of the opportunity and a finding was returned that he had failed to prove the issue that Indrawati had executed a legal and valid Will in his favour. Since it was a decision on an issue by a competent court of jurisdiction, principles of res judicata were folly applicable, since the said decision had become final as the matter was taken up in revision. According to the trial court re-opening of the said issue in a subsequent suit will tantamount to an abuse of process of court and might give rise to the possibility of two conflicting decisions of two different courts on a similar issue The petitioner relied upon various other evidence. Ex. R-l is the copy of the registered Will. Ex. R-2 is the copy of mutation of inheritance to the estate of Indrawati in petitioners favour on the basis of the Will Ex R-3 is the copy of khasra girdawari regarding change in cultivation showing petitioners possession of the suit property as an heir to the estate of the deceased. Ex, R-4 is the copy of judgment in Civil Suit No. 25/1 of 1983f dismissing she plaintiffs suit against Ram Ditta. Ex. R-5 is the copy of order sheet in Miscellaneous application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, . 9. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a decision on an interlocutory application moved under Order I Rule 10 of the Code which virtually is a decision under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code on the death of a party to the suit as to who is the legal representative of the deceased is not res judicata in subsequent proceedings and as such the order is bad in law. In case the impugned order is allowed to stand, It is likely to adversely affect the petitioners right. 10. A Full Bench of Oudh Chief Court in Zalim and others v. Babu Tribchan Prasad Singh, AIR 1937 Oudh 220 held that the determination of question whether a certain person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased party in a proceeding under Order 22 Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, does not operate as res-judicata so as to preclude the same question from being re-agitated in a separate suit- This Court in Suraj Hani and another v. Kishori Lal AIR 1976 HP 74, has held that an order under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code involves a summary enquiry as to who should be substituted in place of the deceased party in a pending proceeding and such a decision does not operate as res-judicata. In the cited case, one Kishori Lal had, by moving an application, sought to be impleaded as legal representative of deceased Had Krishan, on the basis of a Will. The claim to substitution was based on the ground that the Will was invalid and the legal representatives of the deceased were, in fact, his sons and daughters The trial court after examining the material on record found that the Will was a reliable document and accordingly allowed the application of the legatee to be brought on record as legal representative of the deceased. The court held that the definition of the legal representative in Section 2 (11) of the Code is very wide and it would include a person who seeks to represent the estate of the deceased on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by the deceased The estate in such a situation will be sufficiently represented by a person claiming himself to be entitled to the estate on the basis of the Will. It was further held that in a case where the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff were brought on record, the decision to do so under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code must be limited to the purpose of carrying on the suit and cannot have the effect of conferring any right to heirship or to the property. 11. It was further held that in a case where the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff were brought on record, the decision to do so under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code must be limited to the purpose of carrying on the suit and cannot have the effect of conferring any right to heirship or to the property. 11. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohinder Kaur and another v. Piara Singh and others, AIR 1981 Punjab and Haryana 130, held that in no case a decision under Order 22 Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, would operate as res-judicata between the same parties or their successors-in-interest or their privies in a subsequent proceedings even when the said parties had been provided an opportunity to contest the issue and lead the evidence thereon. 12. Though the application, which the petitioner had moved, was under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, yet mere labeling it as an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code will not change the nature and character of such an application, which, in fact, was an application for being substituted as legal representative of the sole deceased defendant on the basis of a Will. In the earlier proceedings, the claim to be brought on record as legal representative was negatived by the court holding that the petitioner had not led sufficient evidence to prove the execution of Will. Such a decision in view of the aforementioned judgments cannot be said to be a determination of question as to the title of the plaintiff to the property, nor about the legality and validity of the Will in question. The same at the most can be said to be binding in those proceedings only, having been taken for the orderly conduct of the proceedings, as held in Mohinder Kaurs case (supra), with a view to avoid delay in the final decision of the suit and till the persons claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased party get the question of succession settled through a different suit and such a decision does not put an end to the litigation in that regard. It also does not determine any of the issues in controversy in the suit. It is obvious that such proceedings are of a very summary nature against the result of which no appeal is provided for. 13. It also does not determine any of the issues in controversy in the suit. It is obvious that such proceedings are of a very summary nature against the result of which no appeal is provided for. 13. It is an important principle of law that the matter which is collaterally or incidentally in issue, for the purpose of deciding the matter, which is directly in issue in the case cannot be made the basis of a plea of res-judkata (See I Smt Gangabal v. Smt Chhabubai, AIR 1982 SC 20. 14. A decision in proceedings for being brought on record under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code or even in proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, cannot be a decision on a question of title While deciding such a question, decision on title will be a matter which is collaterally or incidentally in issue and cannot be said to be res-judicata in subsequent proceedings in another suit. 15. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated I5th June 1987, passed by the trial court is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 16. Since the petitioner has already been ordered to be brought on record as legal representative of deceased-defendant, which order has admittedly not been challenged so far, the revision petition shall stand disposed of accordingly. The parties will bear their respective costs. Order accordingly