Honble MUKHERJI, CJ. – Plaintiff petitioner has filed the present revision application impugning an order dated 20.7.1995 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Gangapur City in Civil Suit No. 39/93 whereby the learned Trial Judge impleaded opposite party No.1 minor Kailash as a legal heir of the deceased defendant No. 1 Gulab. Admittedly, late Gulab and his wife Mst. Singari did not have any natural born son or daughter. Case of the petitioner is that on 15.3.86 they adopted the plaintiff petitioner Santosh after undergoing the necessary formalities under the law conforming to the prevalent customs in their community in presence of their relatives and Panchas of the village. Further more, there was an execution of Adoption Deed in the account book maintained by the natural father, which is commonly known as `Bahi. His case inter alia is that when he was already adopted, the couple Gulab and Mst. Singari could not have adopted another child Kailash and that was precisely the reason why he moved the Civil Judge for an order of ad interim injunction, by filing a suit on 4.5.93. On 27.5.93, admittedly the Deed of Adoption took place witnessing adoption of Kailash by Gulab and Mst. Singari. On 1st June, 1993, the Civil Court issued an order of temporary injunction restraining the erstwhile defendants Gulab and Mst. Singari from taking Kailash in adoption but by that time, the Adoption Deed having already been executed, perhaps the temporary injunction was rendered infractuous. Be that as it may, from the Voters list of 1988, it is revealed that Santosh who is son of Sreeya, is recorded as aged 21 years. Under Sec. 10, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, a child can be taken in adoption if he or she is not married and has not completed the age of 15 years, unless there is custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits to the contrary. This Court is not called upon to decide the merits of the plaintiffs case at the present moment but then the parties would be left to themselves to prove their respective cases even though the onus would heavily fall on the plaintiff, to prove as to how he could come out of the statutory fetters in this regard by proving custom or usage to the contrary. (2). (2). The question at controversy is as to whether the minor child purportedly taken in adoption by late Gulab and his wife Mst. Singari should be added as a party defendant in his capacity as an heir and legal representative in the place and stead of the deceased. Gulab when deceased Gulabs other heir and legal representative Smt. Singari is already on record. Even if the Court has, on the averment of Mst. Singari taken Kailash as the legal representative for the purpose of the suit so as to get him impleaded, there is really no failure to exercise and jurisdiction in accorda- nce with law or there is no exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity, more so when it is an incumbent duty to decide the suit in presence of Kailash, the alleged minor adopted child whose interests are likely to be decided upon in the present controversy. That apart, under Sec. 2 (11) C.P.C. we have an enlarged definition of `legal representative which means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who inter-meddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. In the interests of justice the Civil Court has rightly got the minor Kailash substituted in the place and stead of the deceased Gulab and even if the Civil Court has done so, there is no error of jurisdiction because as a result of substitution itself, the suit is not prematurely decided upon as to whether Kailash is the legally adopted son of late Gulab and Mst. Singari. (3). With these observations, the revision application stands, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Let the suit be decided as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from this date.