SUDHIR NARAIN, J. This is an ap plication for deletion of the name of Sri Hamendra Swaroop Bhatnagar, the plain tiff and substitute the name of M. S. Bhat nagar in his place and there is another application with the similar prayer but there is a further prayer to substitute the name of Satyendra Kumar Bhatnagar also in addition to M. S. Bhatnagar. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are, that Jyoti Swarup Bhatnagar had no issue. He had one brother Har Swarup Bhatnagar. Har Swarup Bhatnagar expired in the year 1923 leaving behind him five sons namely Gyan Swarup Bhatnagar, Sachida Nand Bhatnagar, Brahm Swarup Bhatnagar, Brijendra Swarup Bhatnagar and Hamendra Swarup Bhatnagar. Hamendra Swarup Bhatnagar filed testamentary peti tion No. 13 of 1984 for grant of probate/let ters of administration in the matter of goods and property of deceased Jyoti Swarup Bhatnagar on the allegation that he had executed a Will on 22-4-1920 which provided that till the life-time of Har Swarup he will administer the property of Sri Jyoti Swarup Bhatnagar in accordance with the testament dated 22-4-1920 and after his death, the property shall be ad ministered by the sons of Sri Har Swarup Bhatnagar. Har Swarup Bhatnagar expired in the year 1923 and out of his five sons except the petitioner Hamendra Swarup Bhatnagar, all expired and thus he claimed that he was only surviving ex ecutor of the Will of deceased Jyoti Swarup Bhatnagar. On his petition, the notices were issued and on an object ion being filed by the contesting opposite party, it was treated as contentious and registered as testamentary Suit No. 6 of 1994. 3. Before the Will could be proved, the petitioner Hamendra Swarup Bhatnagar ex pired on 14-6-1999. An application was filed by M,s. Bhatnagar son of Brijendra Swarup Bhatnagar that he may be permitted to be substituted. Another application has been filed by Satyendra Kumar, one of the sons of the petitioner Hamendra Swarup with the prayer that he may be substituted alongwith M. S. Bhatnagar. The opposite party, Ajai Kumar has filed objection to the application for substitution. 4. Another application has been filed by Satyendra Kumar, one of the sons of the petitioner Hamendra Swarup with the prayer that he may be substituted alongwith M. S. Bhatnagar. The opposite party, Ajai Kumar has filed objection to the application for substitution. 4. The core question is whether after the death of the petitioner in a testamen tary suit his heir or any other person is entitled to be substituted in his place and if so, who shall be entitled to be substituted or in other words, to continue the proceed ings for grant of probate/letters of ad ministration under the provisions of In dian Succession Act 1925 (in short "the Act" ). The probate is granted only to an executor appointed by the Will as provided under Section 222 of the Act. In case the executor has not been appointed the let ters of administration is to be granted to an universal or residuary legatee under Sec tion 232 of the Act. In case the person who had applied for probate/letters of ad ministration dies, there are two courses open either the proceedings be dropped or permitted to be continued by a person who shall otherwise be entitled for probate/let ters of administration. 5. Where any suit is filed in the Civil Court, on the death of the plaintiff the suit shall not abate if the right to sue survives. On the death of the plaintiff the Court can (sic) representative of the deceased (sic) Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Similarly, if the defendant dies, his legal representatives can be substituted under Rule 4 of Order XX, C. P. C The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976 and Order IV-A was added which provides that if, in any suit, it shall appear to the Court that any party who has died during the pendency of the suit has no legal representative, the Court may, on the ap plication of any party to the suit, proceed in absence of the person representing the estate of the deceased person, or may by order appoint the administrator general, or an officer of the Court or such other person as it thinks fit to represent the estate of the deceased person for the pur pose of the suit. 6. 6. There is a difference between the proceedings of a suit and that of proceed ings for the grant of probate/letters of ad ministration. On the death of the plaintiff the Court allowed the application for sub stitution. The Court on an application of the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff shall make him a party in the suit if the right to sue survive. The Court has to examine whether such an applicant is en titled to be substituted in relation to the cause of action in the suit and the relief claimed. A petition for probate/letters of administration is filed on the allegation that the petitioner is entitled to probate or letters of administration under the provisions of the Act. One view is that the right to claim probate/letters of ad ministration is personal and on the death of the petitioner the right to obtain probate/letters of administration does not devolve on his heir. In one case, the suit is decreed on the basis of the relief claimed in the suit but in the other case probate/letters of administration is granted under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. But in that respect he has to establish that he is entitled to such grant being an ex ecutor universal or residuary legatee under the Will. 7. The Calcutta High Court in Sarat Chandra Banerjee v. Nani Mohan Banerjee, (1909) 36 Cal. 799, where executor claim ing right of probate on the basis of Will, having died during the pendency of the probate proceedings, his widow sought to be substituted as being his heir, Har rington, J. rejected the application holding that the executors right to sue did not survive. This decision was followed in Hari Bhushan Datta v. Manmath Nath Datta, AIR 1919 Cal. 197. In this case one Him Bhushan Datta applied for grant of letters of administration with a copy of the Will annexed to the estate of the deceased. He died leaving Hari Bhushan Datta as his heir and legal representative. Greaves, J. held that the right for grant of letters of administration was a personal right and this right did not devolve on his heir. It was, however, observed that the applicant may apply for grant of letters of administration and adopt such material proceedings as had been taken in the testamentary suit filed by his father. Greaves, J. held that the right for grant of letters of administration was a personal right and this right did not devolve on his heir. It was, however, observed that the applicant may apply for grant of letters of administration and adopt such material proceedings as had been taken in the testamentary suit filed by his father. These two decisions came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Patna High Court in Mst. Phekni v. Mst. Manki, AIR 1930 Pat. 618, Fazl Ali, J. (as he then was), noted that the view taken by Greaves, J. will cause considerable hardship when the applicant, after death of the petitioner may be en titled to obtain letters of administration. The facts in this case were that an applica tion was filed for letters of administration on the basis that the applicant was legatee under the Will. The application was resisted by the widow of the deceased. The District Judge rejected the application on the finding that the Will was not proved to his satisfaction. Against this decision the applicant filed appeal. During the penden cy of the appeal the appellant died. An application for substitution was filed by his heir. It was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the right to obtain letters of administration was personal and the applicant could not be substituted. The Court repelled the contention with the following observation: "but it is not so clear why a person who has, admittedly, under the law, right to apply for letters of administration, and who derives this right from the legatee by virtue of being an heir of the legatee, should be debarred from carrying on the proceedings if the legatee happens to die after he had applied for letters of administration and before the letters have been granted. " 8. In Chandramani Maity v. Bipin Bihari, AIR 1932 Cal. 206, a distinction was drawn that though right to obtain probate of a Will does not survive, in an appeal in a case where the judgment ap pealed against may operate as one in rem, different consideration will arise and sub stitution should be allowed. The above noted decisions of the Calcutta High Court were also discussed in P. Ram Naidu v. Rangayya Naidu, AIR 1933 Mad. 114 and were dissented from. The above noted decisions of the Calcutta High Court were also discussed in P. Ram Naidu v. Rangayya Naidu, AIR 1933 Mad. 114 and were dissented from. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court took the view that an executor named under the Will, acts in a representative capacity, Le. , for the benefit of whole class of persons in cluding himself, interest in having the Will established. The concept that the right to obtain a probate/letters of administration is limited to a person who has applied for, was not taken as correct because if the Will is proved and probate/letters of ad ministration is granted, it will benefit not only him but others who are equally inter ested in it. Any person interested in the matter can intervene in the proceedings. The position of a petitioner for probate was taken as that of a plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. It is based on the principle that one of the necessary incident of a representative suit is that any person for whose benefit it is instituted may intervene and ask to be made a party under Order 1, Rule 8 (3), C. P. C. The petition for probate stands on a footing similar to that of a representative suit. It was observed that if the petition for probate stands on the foot ing similar to that of a representative suit, it is a right in principle to extend the anal ogy and hold that any legatee or beneficiary may, on a proper case being made intervene at any stage and claim to come on the record. 9. the above noted decisions were surveyed in detail in Jedeja Pravinsinhji Anandsinhji v. Jadeja Mangalsinhji Shivsinhji, AIR 1963 Guj. 32. The view taken by the Madras High Court in Rama Naidus, case (supra) was followed. Mehta, J. did not agree with the view taken by Justice Harrington in Sarat Chand s, case (supra ). 9. the above noted decisions were surveyed in detail in Jedeja Pravinsinhji Anandsinhji v. Jadeja Mangalsinhji Shivsinhji, AIR 1963 Guj. 32. The view taken by the Madras High Court in Rama Naidus, case (supra) was followed. Mehta, J. did not agree with the view taken by Justice Harrington in Sarat Chand s, case (supra ). It was held that on the death of the executor before having proved the Will, the residuary legatee who claimed to be beneficiary under the Will is entitled to continue the proceed ings on the principle that an executor named under the Will and who may happen to be beneficiary under the Will, in applying for probate does not fight a personal action but fights for the interest of all the beneficiaries under the Will. 10. The action of an executor in ap plying for probate is not in substance a personal action. There is no reason that after his death the person claiming the benefit under the Will cannot apply to continue the proceedings. On the other hand, to ask the applicant to file another application for probate/letters of ad ministration, will unnecessarily cause hardship and it will spoil all the proceed ings which have already been taken. 11. Learned Counsel for the respon dent relied upon the decision in Edward Waston Coleston v. Mrs. Theresa Chitty, AIR 1934 All 1053. In this case the learned Judge had granted probate to the Ad ministrator General as the executor, to ad minister the estate of the deceased on the ground that the executor named under the Will was not in sound financial position, this Court held that the probate can be granted only to the person who has been named under the Will under Section 222 of the Succession Act and not the Administrator General who was not named under the Will. The proper course to adopt would be to take proceedings under Section 232 of the Act, under which when an executor dies, after having proved the Will, but before having administered all the estate of the deceased, a universal or a residuary legatee may be admitted to prove the Will and letters of administration with the Will annexed may be granted to him of the whole estate or so much thereof may be administered. It was not a case whether an executor had died and the heirs had applied for substitution. 12. It was not a case whether an executor had died and the heirs had applied for substitution. 12. Hamendra Swarup, who had ap plied for probate/letters of administration, claimed that Jyoti Swarup had appointed his brother Har Swarup as executor and after his death his sons and at the time he applied for probate/letters of administra tion, he was only entitled to apply for the same. He died leaving behind him two sons namely Satyendra Kumar and Ajai Kumar. Ajai Kumar has not filed an application to continue the proceedings. M. S. Bhatnagar, son of Bnjendra Swarup (nephewof Hamendra Swarup), has also applied for substitution. Brijendra Swarup had not applied for probate/letters of administra tion. He does not claim any independent right to apply. Satyendra Kumar, being the legal representative of Hamendra Kumar, is entitled to continue the proceedings. 13. In view of the above, the applica tion of Satyendra Kumar is allowed and the application of M. S. Bhatnagar is rejected. 14. I order accordingly. Application allowed. .