ORDER Rajendra Menon, J. Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made to the order dated 12-9-2001 Annexure P/l passed by the Third Addl. District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 119-A/94, subsequently, renumbered as 69-A/03 on transfer to the Court of 9th District Judge (Fast Track), Gwalior. petitioner is plaintiff in the suit in question which has been filed by him for the purpose of declaration of his title and issuance of permanent injunction with regard to various property as set out in the annexures annexed to the plaint. petitioner claims his right to the property in question as a impartible estate by rule of primogenature. It is the case of the petitioner that he and his father respondent No. 2 are the sole owners of the properties in question and after the death of his father respondent No. 2 he is the absolute owner of the suit property. It is stated that respondent No. 1, since deceased, does not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit property. For claiming the aforesaid benefit petitioner prayed that the partial partition deed dated 31-7-1971 and 31-5-1996 be declared as null and void. During the pendency of the suit respondent No. 1 Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia expired on 25-1-2001 and after her death petitioner moved an application for bringing the legal heirs of the said deceased i.e. respondents No. 1(a) to 1(e) on record. The application has been allowed and the said respondents have been brought on record. Simultaneously, the said respondents No. 1(a) to 1(e) have also moved another application for being brought on record alleging that they are the natural heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 who has executed a Will dated 26-2-1999 in their favour, they are entitled to participate in the proceedings. Applications were allowed and vide order dated 13-8-2001 respondents No. 1(a) to 1(e) have been brought on record being the natural legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 1. While the matter was so pending on 18-5-2001 respondent No. 22 Shambhajirao Angre submitted an application under Order XXII, Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, read with Rule 10 and Section 151, CPC inter alia contending that since respondent No. 1 has executed a Will dated 20-9-1985 and has appointed him as Executor of the said Will, he be taken on record as legal representative of deceased respondent No. 1. It is the case of the respondent No. 22 that he has applied for probate of the Will before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi and the same is pending consideration before the Court. petitioner objected to the aforesaid application denied the execution of the Will dated 20-9-1985. However, after hearing all the concerned by the impugned order learned Court has allowed the application filed by respondent No. 22 and he has been permitted to be brought on record as legal representative of deceased respondent No. 1. The aforesaid impugned order Annexure P/l dated 12-9-2001 is challenged in these proceedings. Initially, challenging the order a Civil Revision No. 939/01 was filed before a Bench of this Court but subsequently, after amendment to Section 115 of the CPC brought into force with effect from 1-7-2002 vide CPC Amendment Act, 1999 the revision was held to be not maintainable. It was, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file the present petition and, hence, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri Ankur Mody, Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is the sole owner of the entire property known as Scindia Royal Family Property and he claims succession to the said property in accordance with the rule of primogenature. It is the case of the petitioner that as succession in the said family has always been strictly in accordance with the rule of primogenature since centuries the entire estate descends to the eldest linear member descendant in the family. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent defendant No. 1 deceased is grandmother and respondent defendant No. 2 is father since deceased have acted in contravention of the rule of primogenature by causing partition in the property and by creating various trusts in the property which according to the petitioner they could not have done. It is stated that vesting of the property by creation of trusts so also by the so called Wills in question by respondents No. 1 and 2 (since deceased) is illegal, petitioner has claimed exclusive right and ownership to the property as per the rule of primogenature. It is stated that vesting of the property by creation of trusts so also by the so called Wills in question by respondents No. 1 and 2 (since deceased) is illegal, petitioner has claimed exclusive right and ownership to the property as per the rule of primogenature. According to Shri Mody, Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that while allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 22 inquiry of the nature contemplated under Order XXII, Rule 5, CPC has not been conducted, Will in question has not been probated, on the basis of Will in question no right accrues to the respondent No. 22 to seek participation in the proceedings, he is not a necessary party and by adding him as a party the scope of inquiry in the suit will get increased and would be a never ending process. Inviting my attention to the following judgments Shri Mody argued that the order passed by the learned Court allowing the application filed by respondent No. 22 is contrary to the settled principles of law and is liable to be quashed. Judgments relied upon by Learned Counsel for petitioner are in the case of Mohinder Kaur and Another Vs. Piara Singh and Others, , Md. Janudul Haque Vs. Md. Zubair Haider and Another, , Kalu Ram Vs. Charan Singh and Another, , Ramdutta Sharma Vs. Krishna Dutta Sharma, . Refuting the aforesaid Shri Deepak Khot, Learned Counsel representing respondent No. 22 argued that the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 5, CPC are not applicable in the present case. Order passed is strictly in accordance with Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC as respondent No. 22 by his application had only sought leave to participate in the proceedings and to defend the interest of deceased respondent No. 1 as he is Executor of the Will in question which has been executed by respondent No. 1 and the said respondent has been nominated as Executor of the said Will. Inviting my attention to a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhaiyalal v. Kashi Bai and Anr. Inviting my attention to a judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhaiyalal v. Kashi Bai and Anr. 2001 (1) MPLJ 429 Shri Khot argued that in the State of M.P. Probate of Will is not necessary and, therefore, contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner that without probate being granted by the Delhi Court respondent No. 22 is not a necessary party is said to be unsustainable Thereafter, placing reliance in the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Others, , argued that keeping in view the observations made in paras 6 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment under Rule 10 of Order XXII where there has been devolution of interest during pendency of the suit leave of the Court can be granted and the person so interested upon whom the interest has devolved is entitled to protect the interest of the deceased person. Similarly, placing reliance on another judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Jaskirat Datwani Vs. Vidyavati and Others, and referring to the observations made in para 5 of the aforesaid judgment Shri Khot argued that allowing the application filed by respondent No. 22 under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC is fully justified and no interference in the matter is called for. It was also emphasized by Shri Khot inviting my attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, that order impugned is not illegal or erroneous to such an extent that interference in the matter in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. Shri Prashant Sharma, Learned Counsel representing respondent No. 1 (a) to 1(e) supported the contentions advanced by Shri Deepak Khot and inviting my attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. Vs. The Collector and Others, , argued that the order passed is in accordance with law and, therefore, no case for interference in the matter is called for. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. of A.P. Vs. The Collector and Others, , argued that the order passed is in accordance with law and, therefore, no case for interference in the matter is called for. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Learned Court below finding that respondent No. 22 is the legal representative having interest in the list by virtue of the Will executed by deceased respondent No. 1 in his favour filed as Annexure R/22-1 vide I.A.A. 15386/05 by the said respondents has allowed the application. Contention of Shri Ankur Mody was mainly with regard to improper inquiry being conducted and violation of the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure. It is seen that all the judgments relied upon by Shri Mody are based on the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 5, CPC and the requirement of conducting an inquiry before taking on record the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff or defendant. In the present case respondent No. 22 is claiming his right to represent the interest in the estate of deceased respondent No. 1 on the ground that he is appointed as Executor and Administrator of Will and as the right to estate of the deceased respondent No. 1 has devolved upon him during the pendency of the suit he has sought leave of the Court to continue to represent the aforesaid interest in the pending suit. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the Court below and prima facie on consideration of the material available on record including the Will in question it cannot be said that respondent No. 22 does not have any interest in the pending list. The question as to whether the Will executed in favour of the said respondent is genuine, proper or otherwise bad in law is not to be considered by this Court in these proceedings. Said question is a question to be adjudicated in the pending suit. In the present proceedings a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court is only required to consider as to whether respondent No. 22 has any interest in the list and was, therefore, a necessary party to the proceedings. Said question is a question to be adjudicated in the pending suit. In the present proceedings a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court is only required to consider as to whether respondent No. 22 has any interest in the list and was, therefore, a necessary party to the proceedings. Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC provides for assignment, creation and devolution of interest during pendency of the suit and it has been held that in case it is found that interest of any of the parties has devolved into any other person such person upon whom the interest has devolved as a right to continue with the suit. The aforesaid principle has been laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Jaskirat Datwani (supra) and Dhurandhar Prasad Singh (supra). In the case of Chief Conservator of Forests (supra) referred to by Shri Prashant Sharma, even though the matter pertains to an application under Order I, Rule 10, CPC but in para 12 of the aforesaid judgment it has been held that the aforesaid provision permits the Court to implead as a necessary party at any stage of proceedings. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that after considering the facts and circumstances that have come on record learned Court below has found that respondent No. 22 is a necessary party and has, therefore, passed the impugned order. The short question which this Court is required to consider in this petition is as to whether interference at this stage of the suit in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. While considering the scope of interference exercising powers in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the case of Mohd. Yunus (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court is only required to see as to whether the inferior Court functions within the authority granted to it under the law. It is not required to correct every error much less an error of law. Yunus (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court is only required to see as to whether the inferior Court functions within the authority granted to it under the law. It is not required to correct every error much less an error of law. Subsequently, thereafter the scope of interference in such matters in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India after amendment to Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, vide Act 46/99 was again considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, in para 26 of the aforesaid judgment Hon. Supreme Court has observed as under: The High Court may have regard to legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision. So long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior Court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, though available to be exercised only at the conclusion of the proceedings, it would be sound exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to refuse to exercise the power of superintendence during the pendency of the proceedings. However, there may be cases where but for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional error committed by the inferior Court or tribunal would be incapable of being remedied once the proceedings have concluded. (Emphasis supplied) It is now settled in law that interference in a pending proceedings into a interlocutory order passed by a Court is required only if the order impugned can be termed as erroneous or illegal to such an extent that if interference is not made in the matter at that particular stage it will cause serious harm, injustice and prejudice to the aggrieved person which cannot be correct at a later stage. The order impugned, if viewed, in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position I am of the considered view that the same cannot be termed as erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference in the matter at this stage is called for. The order impugned, if viewed, in the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position I am of the considered view that the same cannot be termed as erroneous or illegal to such an extent that interference in the matter at this stage is called for. Learned trial Court finding respondent No. 22 to be a necessary party for the reasons as indicated therein has allowed his application purported to be under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC and in doing so it cannot be said that the learned Court has committed an error so grave in nature that interference at this interlocutory stage in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere in the matter, petition stands dismissed without any orders as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed