JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("the Code") are as under A suit was instituted against the defendants-respondents by Gopal Lal son of Nathulal (the plaintiff). During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died, and an application was moved by the applicant-petitioner, within the period of limitation, for being brought on record as the legal representative of the plaintiff on the ground that he was a near relation, being his nephew, and also on the ground that the plaintiff had executed a will during his lifetime, in his favour, and that the will was duly registered. The learned trial court passed an order observing that he would make inquiry about the genuineness of the will. An application was moved by the applicant-petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, praying for a temporary injunction against the defendants-respondents, but, the application has been disposed of with the observations that no injunction order could be passed till the applicant is brought on record. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant-petitioner has approached this Court by filing this revision petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. 3. It has not been disputed before me that in his application for being brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff, the applicant-petitioner had mentioned that he was the nephew of the deceased, who had executed a will in respect of the propeprty in dispute in his favour, and as such, was his legal representative. No one else, claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased and claiming any right in the property in dispute, had come forward before the court, either to contest the claim of the petitioner that he is the legal representative, being the nephew, but also, by virtue of a will, and as such, it is not understandable as to how any inquiry was to be made for the purpose of the legal representative being brought on record. The order passed by the learned trial court in this regard on 12th January, 1991, was, therefore, not in accordance with law, and the learned trial court appears to have not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, properly, by postponing the passing of necessary order on the application. The order passed by the learned trial court in this regard on 12th January, 1991, was, therefore, not in accordance with law, and the learned trial court appears to have not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, properly, by postponing the passing of necessary order on the application. In this view of the matter, the learned trial court further committed an error of jurisdiction by declining to pass an order on the application undr Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, moved by the petitioner, on the ground that he having not been brought on record as the legal representative, could not move the application. Although, the order passed on the application under Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 of the Code, was not challenged by filing a revision petition or otherwise, but, since the whole matter is before the Court, and the Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code, the Court can correct the proceedings before the learned trial court. 4. It is not disputed that the respondents-defendants do not claim any right in the property in dispute through the plaintiff and have no right to challenge the will or the claim of the petitioner that he had inherited the right in the property in dispute being the nephew of the plaintiff. 5. There has thus been no opposition to the application under Order 22, filed by the petitioner, being allowed by this Court. 6. Consequently, I accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and while allowing the application of the petitioner for being brought on record as the legal representative of the plaintiff, remand the case to the learned trial court, for deciding the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code, on merits. 7. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the leanred trial court, on 26th February, 1993. 8. During the pendency of this revision petition, vide order dated 28th May, 1991, R.S. Kejriwal, J. had directed that the parties should maintain the status quo, and which is being maintained. Till the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is decided by the learned trial court, the status quo should be maintained by the parties. 9. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. No costs.Revision Accepted. *******