JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - Defendants No. 4 and 5 have filed the present revision petition. Their prayer for substitution in place of defendant No. 3, their father, who has since died, has been rejected by the learned trial Court. 2. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court clearly shows that the prayer of defendants No. 4 and 5 for the aforesaid substitution was not contested by the plaintiffs at any stage. In this view of the matter, the contest put up by defendant No. 1 could not have been taken into consideration for rejection of the prayer made by defendants No. 4 and 5. The suit primarily is between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The inter-se dispute between the defendants was not the subject matter of any determination before the learned trial Court. It any one of the defendants has any inter-se dispute, the same shall be decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction in independent proceedings. One more fact which is noticeable is defendant No. 3 Prem Chand Jaiswal was the father of Ajay Jaiswal and Vikas Jaiswal. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid defendants No. 4 and 5 have a right to be substituted as LRs of defendant No. 3 in the suit. Of course such a substitution shall not confer upon them any rights of being trustees in the trust. 3. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated October 31, 2003 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and defendants No. 4 and 5 are permitted to be substituted in place of defendant No. 3.