Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner is the Third Defendant, who has been subsequently impleaded in the Suit in O.S. No.9240 of 2006 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. Suit is filed for Specific Performance of contract and also for declaration of the Settlement Deed executed by the First Defendant in favour of the Second Defendant on 08.9.2006 and also for permanent injunction. The Respondents herein are Plaintiff and 7th Defendant in the Suit respectively. Pending trail of the Suit, the First Defendant died on 14.11.2007 leaving behind no legal heirs. Hence, the First Respondent/Plaintiff filed an Application in I.A. No.16577 of 2007 under Order 22, Rule 4-A of Civil Procedure Code to implead the proposed party, namely, the Petitioner herein, as Third Defendant in the Suit. 3. In the Affidavit, it is stated that the 7th Defendant filed a Memo alleging that he is the adopted son by the First Defendant but the same is incorrect. Since there is no legal heir, the proposed party has to be impleaded. In the Counter filed by this Petitioner, the allegations in the Affidavit are denied and it has been stressed that there is no necessity to implead the proposed party. 4. The Seventh Defendant filed a Memo before the Trial Court stating that he is the adopted son of the First Defendant to which baptism certificate is also enclosed and that the First Defendant has no legal heirs. 5. The learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after hearing both sides, has allowed the Application observing that whether the 7th Defendant is adopted son of the First Defendant and whether there are any of the legal heirs of the First Defendant, have to be decided only at the time of final hearing of the case. This order is challenged before this Court. 6. Mrs. S. Annapoorana, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Trial Court should have taken up an enquiry to decide whether any Legal Representatives are available for the deceased First Defendant and whether it is true to say that the 7th Defendant is the adopted son of the First Defendant. Without determining the abovesaid decisions, this Petitioner could not be impleaded in the Suit. 7. Contending contra, Mr. Without determining the abovesaid decisions, this Petitioner could not be impleaded in the Suit. 7. Contending contra, Mr. Annamalai, learned Counsel for the First Respondent /Plaintiff would submit that 7th Defendant has not produced any baptism certificate as alleged in the Memo and that at the final hearing of the case, this point should be decided. In this context, Order 22, Rule 4-A and Rule 5 would come to play which read as under: 4-A. Procedure where there is no Legal Representative. – (1) If, in any Suit, it shall appear to the court that any party who has died during the pendency of the Suit has no Legal Representative, the Court may, on the application of any party to the Suit, proceed in the absence of a person representing the estate of the deceased person or may by order appoint the Administrator-General, or an officer of the Court or such other person as it thinks fit to represent the estate of the deceased person for the purpose of the Suit; and any judgment or order subsequently given or made in the Suit shall bind the estate of the deceased person to the same extent as he would have been bound. If a personal representative of the deceased person had been a party to the Suit. (2) Before, making an order under this Rule, the Court- (a) may require notice of the application for the order to be given to such (if any) of the person having an interest in the estate of the deceased person as it thinks fit; and (b) shall ascertain that the person proposed to be appointed to represent the estate of the deceased person is willing to be so appointed and has no interest adverse to that of the deceased person. 5. 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.” 8. When the Court goes through the abovesaid provisions, it has been made clear by the Code that the decision of the Court that there are no legal representatives for the deceased party in a Suit is a sine quo non for invoking Order 22(4-A) of the Civil Procedure Code. When the Court goes through the abovesaid provisions, it has been made clear by the Code that the decision of the Court that there are no legal representatives for the deceased party in a Suit is a sine quo non for invoking Order 22(4-A) of the Civil Procedure Code. In order to invoke the abovesaid provisions, Rule 5 enables the Court to hold an enquiry and determine whether there are any Legal Representatives for the deceased. 9. In the considered view of this Court, without deciding the fact that the deceased is not leaving any legal heirs, the Court cannot embark upon the exercise of conducting further proceeding in the Suit. In other words, invoking Order 22, Rule 4-A, C.P.C. is not permissible prior to the determination of legal heirs for the deceased party to the Suit under Rule 5 of order 22 of the Code. The finding of the Court below that the decision as to the availability of legal heirs of the First Defendant and whether the Second Defendant is the adopted son of the First Defendant have to be determined only at the final hearing of the Suit. In the considered view of this Court, the said, finding is not in accordance with the law adumbrated in the abovesaid provisions. It is to be borne in mind that concept of adoption is unknown to Christian law. (Shopana v. Sunpararaj and others, 2008 (3) MLJ 695 ). 10. In the light of the abovesaid observations, the order challenged before this Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. I.A. No.16577 of 2007 in O.S. No.9240 of 2006 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. 11(a). The Court below is directed to hold an enquiry under Order 22, Rule 5, C.P.C. for the purpose of the invoking Order 22, Rule4-A of the Code. Subject to the result of the enquiry, the Plaintiff may take further steps to implead the party. The Court below shall grant opportunity to the First Respondent/Plaintiff to file his objections for the Memo filed by the 7th Respondent and it shall also hold enquiry on the Memo after hearing parties concerned. The enquiry on the memo shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court below shall grant opportunity to the First Respondent/Plaintiff to file his objections for the Memo filed by the 7th Respondent and it shall also hold enquiry on the Memo after hearing parties concerned. The enquiry on the memo shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After the above said enquiry, the Suit shall be disposed of within a period of three months.