JUDGMENT 1. 1. This revision petition has been preferred by the defendants against the order dated 29.10.1998 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.2, Alwar, whereby the application moved by the respondents under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code had been allowed. 2. One Ram Chandra (since deceased), the plaintiff, had filed a suit against Ram Swaroop (since deceased) defendants, and being represented by the petitioner Nos.2 to 7, Ram Kishore, Giriraj and Devi Sahai (now deceased) for declaration and cancellation of sale-deed. Ram Chandra died. One Om Prakash, respondent No.1 moved an application that said Ram Chandra had executed a will on 8.3.1986 in his favour bequeathing certain immovable property to him and he wanted to be impleaded in place of Ram Chandra as the plaintiff. 3. Reply was filed to the application. The execution of the will was denied on certain grounds. As per the facts stated, Ram Chandra is said to have adopted Ram Swaroop as son. The revision petitioners are legal heirs of said Ram Swaroop. Ram Chandra plaintiff had even challenged so called adoption made by him and also the sale-deed i.e. in a way Ram Chandra was disowning the status of Ram Swaroop. 4. The trial court on the application made by Om Prakash vide the impugend order had allowed the substitution which is being challenged in the present revision petition. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that before passing the order of substitution under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code, it was incumbent upon the trial court to have made an enquiry under Rule 5 of Order 22 of Civil Procedure Code and for the said purpose, relies on a judgment of this court in the case of Shyam Lal v. Hanuman Prasad & Ors. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.920/96 decided on 21.11.1996 (reported in 1997 WLC (Raj.) UC 44) which related to the point of adoption without producing the registered sale-deed of adoption and it was held by the trial court that only on the affidavit filed about the adoption, the substitution cannot be allowed until and unless a proper issue is framed in this regard. 6. However, in the present case, Om Prakash was relying on a Will executed by the plaintiff in his favour. The plaintiff himself had challenged the so called adoption in favour of the defendants. 6. However, in the present case, Om Prakash was relying on a Will executed by the plaintiff in his favour. The plaintiff himself had challenged the so called adoption in favour of the defendants. It is not denied that the copy of the Will has been produced on record. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted at this stage to the effect that before accepting the application moved under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code, the validity of the Will itself was to be adjudicated and only then the application ought to have been decided. If the Will has been produced in the trial court which is being challenged by the defendants, now petitioners, the court will have to make the issue in this regard while deciding the merits of the suit. Prima facie, if the reliance is placed on the Will and application is moved under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code claiming the rights arising out of the Will, in my opinion, the trial court has not committed any illegality in allowing the application and as such no jurisdictional error has been committed so as to warrant any interference in the order passed under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code.The revision petition is dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******