ORDER 1. This is a revision against the order dated 26.7.1996 passed by I Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 3-A of 1995. The disposal of this revision shall also govern the disposal of connected Civil Revision No. 1364 of 1996 (Shrikant Gupta v. Subodh Kumar Gupta and three others) as the facts and the questions raised are identical in both the revisions. 2. This revision was filed by the plaintiff, Suryakant Gupta, who claims to be sole owner of M/s. Rajaram Maize Products, Mouja Mohar, District Rajnandgaon. The suit was for declaration of the title of the applicant/plaintiff and for injunction, restraining the non-applicants/defendants from interfering with the management and conduct of business of the applicant/plaintiff. 3. During the pendency of the suit, Rajaram, the defendant No. 1 died on 15.1.1996. Thereupon, the applicant filed an application dated 30th January, 1996 (Annexure A-1), to the effect that the name of the non-applicant/defendant No.1 be deleted from the array of the parties. It was claimed in that application that Rajaram had executed a registered will on 26th October, 1995 stating that the name of Rajaram Gupta be deleted from the record and by will the property in question was given to the applicant, if the Court came to the conclusion that the firm already stood dissolved. Otherwise also there was a direction in the will to delete the name of the non-applicant/defendant No. 1 from the cause-title. 4. The non-applicant/defendant No.4, Subodh Kumar Gupta, however, contested the application by saying that the registered will was a forged document. Apart from the legal representatives on record, Rajaram left behind him, his wife Mst. Saraswati Devi Gupta and two daughters namely, Smt. Prabha Agrawal and Smt. Manju Agrawal; and also two sons namely, Shrikant Gupta and Subodh Kumar Gupta, who were already on record of the case. 5. In view of the application made by Subodh Kumar Gupta, the trial Court issued notices to Smt. Sarwaswati Devi Gupta, Smt. Prabha Agrawal and Smt. Manju Agrawal. So far as Smt. Saraswati Devi Gupta, the mother of the non-applicants No.2 and 4 was concerned, she declined to be joined as a party. However, so far as Smt. Prabha Agrawal and Smt. Manju Agrawal, who were the daughters of late Rajaram Agrawal, were concerned, they wanted to contest the suit and they filed affidavits. 6. So far as Smt. Saraswati Devi Gupta, the mother of the non-applicants No.2 and 4 was concerned, she declined to be joined as a party. However, so far as Smt. Prabha Agrawal and Smt. Manju Agrawal, who were the daughters of late Rajaram Agrawal, were concerned, they wanted to contest the suit and they filed affidavits. 6. It appears that on account of counter claim filed by Subodh Kumar Gupta and also by Smt. Prabha Agrawal and Smt. Manju Agrawal, the trial Court began to make an inquiry regarding the genuineness of the will under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. There were certain other applications filed during the course of the trial These applications were under Order 16 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for examination of eight witnesses and also under Order 16 Rule 3 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to examine the government servant. The case was fixed for orders on these applications, on 17.4.1996. On 17.4.1996, the applicant filed another application under Order 22 Rule 4 readwith section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an inquiry into the genuineness of the will. The case was then fixed for reply on 23.4.1996. There was a reply filed to this application by Subodh Kumar Gupta, who contested the application. The case was then fixed for 7.6.1996. 8. It appears that ultimately, on 5.7.1996 the Court passed an order to the effect that it is necessary to decide before proceeding with the suit on merits the question who shall be the legal representative of late Rajaram Gupta. A notice was also issued to the wife and two daughters of late Rajaram Gupta in this respect. Thereafter, an application was made on behalf of the applicant to the effect that the applicant had filed an application for appointment of local commissioner and also an application for permission to examine a government servant to prove the registered will of the deceased Rajaram. The applicant had claimed that this examination could only be done by examining a local commissioner as summons could not be issued to these persons. The applicant should be permitted to begin first. The applicant had claimed that this examination could only be done by examining a local commissioner as summons could not be issued to these persons. The applicant should be permitted to begin first. These applications were held to be premature by order dated 5.7.1996 by the Court -below and, therefore, the application dated 5.7.1996 as well as the earlier applications for permission to examine the government servant and other witnesses refused. Thereafter, the trial Court recorded the evidence of the applicant as well as the witnesses of Subodh Kumar Gupta and closed the case for orders. 9. The applicant, aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.1996 passed by the Court-below has filed this revision claiming that the earlier applications, Annexures A-4 and A-5 were rejected on the ground that they were premature. 10. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the will could not be proved by the applicant unless the witnesses mentioned in Annexures A-4 and A-B were examined at Mandsaur as the will was executed and registered at Mandsaur and the Court was not in a position to examine the witnesses, who were residing at Mandsaur. It was contended that the Court at Rajnandgaon had no power to issue summons to witnesses as they lived beyond the local limits of jurisdiction of Rajnandgaon and one of them was a government servant. Therefore, this part of the impugned order dated 26.7.1996 was bad in the eyes of law to the extent that the Court-below treated the application for examination on Commission in the light of the order dated 5.7.1996 to be premature. 11. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that under the facts and circumstances of the case it was incumbent upon this Court under Order 22 Rule 5 of \he Code of Civil Procedure to examine who were the real legal representatives of the deceased Rajaram Gupta and, therefore, the question whether Rajaram Gupta had executed a will in his favour at Mandsaur was of prime importance. In case the will was proved, neither Shrikant nor Subodh could claim to be the legal representatives of Rajaram Gupta. It was also contended that even his wife and two daughters are also not entitled to any share in the property under the will. Therefore, the only possibility open to this Court is to delete the name of Rajaram Gupta after due inquiry as to genuineness of the will. It was also contended that even his wife and two daughters are also not entitled to any share in the property under the will. Therefore, the only possibility open to this Court is to delete the name of Rajaram Gupta after due inquiry as to genuineness of the will. The trial Court refused to given an opportunity to the applicant for examining the genuineness for the will by wrongly saying that the applications dated 13.4.96 for appointment of local commissioner for examining the witnesses as well as the government servant to prove the will was premature. 11. The learned counsel for the non-applicants contends that in reality, it is not necessary to make any inquiry regarding genuineness of the will in this case. The question of execution of will in favour of the applicant is a question which shall be tried at the time the case is finally decided on merits. It appears that all that is necessary is to determine who are the probable legal representatives of deceased Rajaram Gupta. The learned counsel for the non-applicant also pointed out that the legal representatives of deceased Rajaram Gupta, who was one of the defendants, were already on record, that is to say, Suryakant Gupta, Shrikant Gupta and Subodh Kumar Gupta and also Smt. Prabha Agrawal. Under such circumstances, the only option open to this Court was to issue summons to the remaining legal representatives of deceased Rajaram Gupta and add them as defendants as the natural successors of late Rajaram Gupta. By adding them as parties to the suit all the defendants who could be represented in the suit were given an opportunity to contest the suit. If the applicant claims that he was the sole owner of the property of Rajaram Gupta, after his death, by virtue of his will, the applicant could establish it by proving the will during the course of the trial the applicant would not suffer in any manner by refusal to examine the witnesses on Commission and this Court in exercise of powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not interfere with the order passed by the Court-below as substantial justice has already been done in this case. The applicant shall not suffer any irreparable injury by the impugned order. The applicant shall not suffer any irreparable injury by the impugned order. Shri ML Jaiswal, counsel, appearing for the non-applicant No.4, also submitted that he has filed reply showing that at the stage of Supreme Court, which was SLP. No. 1008 of 1996, an application (I.A. No. 3/96) was made to the effect that the legal representatives of the non-applicant No.3 were brought on record. Accordingly, the interlocutory application was allowed. The learned counsel submitted that once an order was passed for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Rajaram Gupta on record by the Supreme Court in S.L.P., which arose from C.S. No. 3-A of 1995, the impugned order shall ennure for the benefit of entire case and, therefore, all this question of bringing the legal representatives of late Rajaram Gupta on record would not arise. The legal representatives brought in aforesaid S.L.P. No. 1008/96 (Annexure-A) is binding on trial Court. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that it is obvious from the record that when Rajaram Gupta died, Shrikant Gupta and Subodh Kumar Gupta, apart from the applicant, were already on record of C.S. no. 2-A of 1995. Therefore, in the normal circumstances, the only application that need be filed on behalf of the applicant was to the effect that the rest of the legal representatives be brought on record. However, in this particular case, the applicant claims that he was the sole legal representative under the will and the other legal representatives could not have inherited the property. 13. A legal representative is a person who, in law, represents the estate of the deceased person. In certain cases, this has to be determined by examining the will executed by the deceased who was a party to the suit. The persons who are natural heirs can also claim to be the legal representative by succession to the property and consequently, can challenge the will. Such applications can be decided only by determining prima facie, who are legal representatives. A detailed inquiry may not be called for because the determination whether the person is a legal representative or not by virtue of a will is likely to impinge upon the merits of the case. In reality, this question can only be decided by the trial Court by trying the case on merits. A detailed inquiry may not be called for because the determination whether the person is a legal representative or not by virtue of a will is likely to impinge upon the merits of the case. In reality, this question can only be decided by the trial Court by trying the case on merits. It is also well established that there can be no piece-meal trial. For this reason, this Court is of the view that the safest course would have been to permit the applicant to bring all the legal representatives on record including the wife and the two daughters of the deceased Rajaram Gupta, apart from his sons. In case, the plaintiff succeeds to prove his will at the stage of trial, he would definitely got the share of Rajaram Gupta by virtue of the will and all other legal consequences shall ensue thereafter. By adopting the aforesaid course all the legal representatives of late Rajaram Gupta shall have an opportunity to contest the case on merits during the course of the trial. No harm shall be done to the applicant by not permitting him to raise the points involved in this revision because there is no substantial injury to the applicant nor the impugned order occasion failure of justice in any manner and the applicant does not suffer any irreparable injury. 14. As a result of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any merit in this revision. The revision is, therefore, dismissed.