S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THE revision petitioner herein filed IANo. 164 of 1989 seeking to be impleaded as legal representative of the deceased-1st appellant in AS No. 26 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chirala on the strength of an alleged Will dated 30-12-1988. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein also filed another IA No. 91 of 1992 seeking them to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased-1st appellant alleging mat they are her step children and that she died intestate. The Court below allowed IA No. 91 of 1992 and dismissed IA No. 164 of 1989 disbelieving the Will. Aggrieved by the dismissal of IA No. 164 of 1989 the present revision petition has been filed. Submissions: the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended before the learned single Judge that the Court below should have impleaded him and that the validity of the Will could have been decided in the main suit. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia submits that as an order passed in terms of Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not operate as resjudicata, there was no bar in impleading both the petitioner as also the opposite party by allowing both the applications. The learned Counsel would contend that there is no bar in law in substituting the contesting parties and consequent determination of the dispute as regards genuineness or otherwise of the Will. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on S. Charanjit Singh v. V. Bharatinder, AIR 1988 Pandh 123, Dokala Buchiraju v. Dokala Bangaramma, 1999 (1) ALD 676 , Mst. Deu v. Lalxmi Narayan, (1998) 8 SCC 701 , L Chandrasekhara Sarma v. J. Vimala Kumari. , 1993 (2) ALT 276 . ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that Order 22, Rule 5 envisages determination of the issue as regards who should be substituted as legal representative in place of a deceased party. It was submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not questioned the order passed in favour of the opposite party in IA No. 91 of 1992, he cannot be permitted to reopen the issue. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Radha Krishna v. Shyam Sundar, AIR 1964 Ori. It was submitted that having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not questioned the order passed in favour of the opposite party in IA No. 91 of 1992, he cannot be permitted to reopen the issue. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Radha Krishna v. Shyam Sundar, AIR 1964 Ori. 136 and G. Savitramma v. K. Ramadevi, 1991 (1) ALT 453 . Findings: order 22, Rule 5 of the Code reads thus: determination of question as to legal representative : where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court: provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any Subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question. ( 4 ) A substitution in place of a party to the suit is directed to see that the suit may continue in a case where the cause of action survives. The determination of question as to the legal representative in terms of Order 22, Rule 5 in certain situation may depend upon the nature of a suit. ( 5 ) IT is trite that where a dispute arises as to who is the legal representative, the duty of the Court is to determine the said question. Such a question should normally be determined at the threshold. In Radha Krishna s case (supra) it has been held: it is to be noted that the learned Subordinate Judge did not at all consider the question whether the petitioner was adopted by Laximani. The only point that he was called upon to enquire into and determine in the proceedings under Order 22, Rule 5, CPC was whether the petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. Order 22, Rule 5 prescribes that where a question arises as to whether the petitioner was the adopted son of Laximani. Under Section 115 (b) CPC. , the High Court can set aside the order dated. . . . as the learned Judge failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him. Order 22, Rule 5 prescribes that where a question arises as to whether the petitioner was the adopted son of Laximani. Under Section 115 (b) CPC. , the High Court can set aside the order dated. . . . as the learned Judge failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him. He has the jurisdiction to determine whether the petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. Without exercising his jurisdiction in that regard the learned Judge indulged in extraneous consideration as to what would happen if the petitioner was permitted to raise the question of adoption in a suit for partition. The order is liable to be quashed under Section 115 (b ). ( 6 ) A learned single Judge of this Court in G. Savitramma v. K. Ramadevi, 1991 (1) ALT 453 , referring to Nagappa v. Kuruppaiah, AIR 1925 Mad. 456 , Jato Singh v. Malti Kuer, AIR 1947 Pat. 474, Kali Pachi v. Ramalakshmi, AIR 1953 Tra. Cochin 158, Kunchikavi v. Kesavan Nayar, AIR 1960 Ker. 79 and Ram Prakash v. Shamkari, AIR 1968 Punj. 293, has opined that where there is a dispute regarding the legal representatives of the deceased, impleading the alleged legal representatives without deciding who are the legal representatives is a material irregularity which requires interference under Section 115 of the Code and such an order cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) A question has come up for consideration before the apex Court in Annupam Pruthi v. Rajen Bat, AIR 1988 SC 2041 , In that case legal representatives were substituted on consent but thereafter an application was filed to recall the said order. A question arose as to whether the Will in question is genuine or not. The apex Court held: the question whether Will is genuine and whether Prakash Bai had executed the Will gifting the entire properly in dispute to Mrs. Rajen Bai and her minor son, exclusively is highly disputed, which can be decided in an appropriate proceedings on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. Since (he substitution application had already been disposed of, that question could not be reopened subsequently at the instance of Smt. Rajen Bai. Provisions of Order 22, Rule 5 stood fully complied with when the question of substitution of heirs and legal representatives of Prakash Bai was decided by the order dated 24-7-1972. Since (he substitution application had already been disposed of, that question could not be reopened subsequently at the instance of Smt. Rajen Bai. Provisions of Order 22, Rule 5 stood fully complied with when the question of substitution of heirs and legal representatives of Prakash Bai was decided by the order dated 24-7-1972. That order could not be recalled at tlie instance of Smt. Rajen Bai. ( 8 ) IN Mst. Deu s case (supra) in a suit for partition an application for substitution was filed on the basis of a registered deed of adoption in favour of the applicant thereunder. Two persons on the ground that they were step sons had already been impleaded. Such impleaded defendants resisted the claim. The apex Court held that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act a registered deed of adoption cannot be permitted to be collaterally challenged. The suit was a partition suit and as such, all the legal heirs could be impleaded as by reason of such impleadment, nature and character of the suit would not change. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the parties have failed to state before us the nature of the suit. We, therefore, have to proceed on the presumption that in the event the application filed by the petitioner for substitution in place of deceased is allowed, the genuineness or otherwise of the Will, will have to be gone into which in view of the decisions of the apex Court in Annupam (supra) is not permissible. Even in Mst. Deu s case (supra) it was held that a registered deed of adoption has to be disproved by taking recourse to independent proceedings. ( 10 ) IN S. Charanjit Singh s case (supra) a learned single Judge held that determination of question under Order 22, Rule 5 was only for the purposes specified therein and thus "proper course would be to bring all the legal representatives on record as that vouchsafe the estate of the deceased for ultimate benefit of the real legal representatives". We do not think that the said proposition is correct. ( 11 ) FOR the purpose of determining as to who is the legal representative, even a finding has to be arrived at as to whether the Will is genuine or not. We do not think that the said proposition is correct. ( 11 ) FOR the purpose of determining as to who is the legal representative, even a finding has to be arrived at as to whether the Will is genuine or not. ( 12 ) IT may be that in a given case such a question may be decided along with other issues in the suit which in the opinion of this Court should better be avoided having regard to the fact that evidences may be led by a party who may ultimately be found to be not a legal representative. The Court normally would not permit a plaintiff or defendant in a suit to adduce inter se contradictory or inconsistent evidence. ( 13 ) IN the event it is found that one or the other party is not the legal representative, the Court will have to discard such evidences. In any event, as such a finding would not attract the principles of res judicata as envisaged under Section 11 of the Code another suit will be maintainable and in the event such a suit is filed the Court will again have to go into the rival contentions. In Dokala Buchiraju s case (supra) a learned single Judge of this Court has merely held that a legatee under a Will can be brought on record as legal representative. In that case upon consideration of the oral evidence adduced the Court came to the conclusion that the Will was prima facie found to have not been proved. In L. Chandrasekhara Sarma s case, a question which arose for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court is when a party has already been brought on record, whether another party can again be brought on record or not. The said question was answered in the affirmative. In that case in the counter-affidavit filed by the revision petitioner therein, the averment made as regards the proposed party being the daughter of the deceased-1 st appellant and her not being aware of the pendency of the case in the Court had been denied. But according to the learned Judge those issues could not be adjudicated upon. It does not appear to have laid down a good law. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, the Court has arrived at a prima facie finding against the petitioner herein and in favour of the respondents. But according to the learned Judge those issues could not be adjudicated upon. It does not appear to have laid down a good law. ( 14 ) IN the instant case, the Court has arrived at a prima facie finding against the petitioner herein and in favour of the respondents. The petitioner herein does not question the right of the respondents to be brought on record as legal representatives. In this situation, we are of the opinion that it is not a case where the petitioner can also be directed to be brought on record as by reason of the impugned order no jurisdictional error has been committed. ( 15 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.