ORDER D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the applicant who is defendant in the Trial Court against the order dated9.2.1995 whereby his objection to the application for substitution filed by non-applicant No. 1-Todan Singh on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed in his favour by deceased/plaintiff his sister Meera Bai has been rejected. 2. Placing reliance to the provisions of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and contention advanced before the Trial Court and is now reiterated in this Court is that without obtaining a probate of the Will in the pending suit, the non-applicant No. 1 could not claim substitution. 3. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned held that the provisions of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 particularly Sub-section (2), Clause (i) read with Section 57, Clauses (a) and (b) of the Act do not prohibit enquiry into an application for substitution under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of a Will even without grant of a probate. The Trial Judge placed reliance on a decision cited by him in the case of Jumman Khan v. Sunil Kumar, 1998 (2) M.P. Weekly Notes 11. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Pranay Verma in support of the contention urged that without grant of probate on the Will the Trial Court could not hold any enquiry to allow substitution of legal representative placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in Mrs. Mem Nolini judah (through her Legal Representative) v. Mrs. lsolyne Saroj - Bashini Bose and Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1471 . Learned Counsel was fair enough to bring to the notice of this Court decisions of Single Benches of this Court taking a view that Section 213(2) of the Act read with Section 57, Clauses (a) and (b) do not require production of probate of a Will in every case for claiming substitution of legal representatives in a suit. Thedecision is reported in 1986JLJ806,Madan Gopal and Anr. v. Smt, Ramjiwanibai and Ors. Attention was also invited to the decision in Ram Datta v. Krishna Datta, 1987 JLJ 198 . 5. In the present case the Will on the basis of which the non-applicant No. 1 claimed substitution as legal representative for the deceased plaintiff was executed in Madhya Pradesh;. Thedecision is reported in 1986JLJ806,Madan Gopal and Anr. v. Smt, Ramjiwanibai and Ors. Attention was also invited to the decision in Ram Datta v. Krishna Datta, 1987 JLJ 198 . 5. In the present case the Will on the basis of which the non-applicant No. 1 claimed substitution as legal representative for the deceased plaintiff was executed in Madhya Pradesh;. To decide whether Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act bars claim based on a Will in the absence of a probate would require examination of the relevant provisions of Section 213 and Section 57, Clauses (a), (b) mentioned in the former section which is as under : "Section 213. Right as executor or legatee when established- (1) No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted letters of administration with the Will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the Will annexed. (2) This section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by Muhamedans, and shall only apply,- (i) in the case of Wills made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina where such Wills are to the clauses specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57." "Section 57. Application of certain provisions of part to a class of Wills made by Hindus, etc.- The provisions of this Part which are set out in Schedule III shall, subject to the restrictions and modifications specified therein, apply,- (a) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina, on or after the first day of September, 1870, within the territories which at the said date were subject to the Lieu tenant-Governor of Bengal or within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts of Judicature at Madras and Bombay; and (b) to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits so far as relates to immovable property situates within those territories or limits; and (c) to all Wills and codicils made by any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina on or after the first day of January, 1927, to .which those provisions are not applied by Clauses (a) and (b): Provided that marriage shall not revoke any such Will or codicil." 6. A bare reading of the provision makes it clear that Sub-section (1) of Section 213 placing a prohibition on claiming right based on a Will without probate, are applicable only to Will of the class specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57 in accordance with Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 213. The present Will executed in Madhya Pradesh is not one of the classes of Wills specified in Sub-clause (a) and Sub-clause (b). The restriction is to the Will executed within jurisdiction of High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bombay and Bengal and to all such Wills and codicils made outside those territories and limits but only insofar as they relate to movable properties situated in those territories and limits. 7. The above aspect of the case distinguishes the Supreme Court decision in case of Mem Nolini Judah (supra). The learned trial Judge was perfectly justified in taking a view that the provisions of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act do not bar any enquiry by the Civil Court into the Will herein produced for the purpose of considering the application for substitution of the non-applicant as a legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. Learned Single Judge Dr. T.N. Singh, J. in the case of Madan Gopal (supra), has noticed the above distinction with regard to the applicability of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act to specified classes of Wills. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no error in the impugned order. Consequently, the revision fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.