JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6.2.12 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 4, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 10/05, whereby the trial court has partly allowed the application of the petitioner by setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, permitting her to proceed further with the suit proceedings from the stage of death of the original defendant. 2. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No.1-original plaintiff had filed the suit against the original-defendant Purshottam Traders through its proprietor Kalicharan Khandelwal for recovery of Rs. 4,61,838.68/-. In the said suit the original defendant had filed the written statement and contested the suit. Thereafter the court had framed the issues and the plaintiff had led the evidence by examining the witnesses. After the closer of evidence of the plaintiff on 16.11.05, the original defendant proprietor Kalicharan expired and, therefore the plaintiff had filed the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of said defendant. The present petitioner being the wife of said Kalicharan, was sought to be impleaded as the legal representative, alongwith the other legal representatives of the deceased. The trial court had issued the notice to the said legal representatives and as per the order-sheet dated 16.10.06, the notice issued to the present petitioner had returned served, however nobody had appeared on her behalf. The court therefore had adjourned the case on 28.11.06. On the said date, the court had recorded that nobody appeared for the present petitioner Asharfi Devi and Shri Jyoti Prakash, though duly served and, therefore the proceedings shall be proceeded ex-parte against them. The court also passed the order for serving the notices, to the other unserved legal representatives of the deceased, by publication of the notice. It appears that thereafter on 17.3.07, nobody appeared for the present petitioner and other legal representatives except the legal representative Ajeet Kumar, who was represented by the advocate Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Sharma. The court therefore after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, who were present, allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 22, Rule 4 of CPC by permitting the plaintiff to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased Kalicharan. 3. The court therefore after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, who were present, allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 22, Rule 4 of CPC by permitting the plaintiff to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased Kalicharan. 3. It appears that thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time, and the petitioner submitted an application for setting aside the order dated 28.11.06 passed by the trial court and for permitting the petitioner to contest the suit afresh. The trial court vide the impugned order allowed the said application partly by setting aside the order for proceeding ex-parte, however directed that the petitioner and the other legal representatives of the deceased Kalicharan may take part in the proceedings from the stage of death of the deceased. Since the evidence of the plaintiff was already over, the trial court directed that the petitioner may produce evidence if she chooses so, but her request for directing the plaintiff to supply the copy of the plaint was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. S.N. Soorwal for the petitioner that when the court had set aside the order dated 28.11.06 for proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner, the trial court should have permitted the petitioner to take part in all the proceedings which had taken place after the said order including the proceeding by which the petitioner was sought to be joined as the legal representative of the deceased Kalicharan. Pressing into service Order 9, Rule 7 , the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled to take part in the proceedings from the stage when the ex-parte proceedings were drawn. 5. As stated hereinabove, the court had passed the order on 28.11.06 for proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner, as the petitioner though was served with the notice for impleading her as one of the legal representatives, did not appear before the court. The court thereafter vide the order dated 17.3.07 allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC impleading the legal representatives including the present petitioner in place of the original defendant deceased Kalicharan. The court thereafter vide the order dated 17.3.07 allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 22, Rule 4 CPC impleading the legal representatives including the present petitioner in place of the original defendant deceased Kalicharan. The said order remained unchallenged for about five years, and subsequently the present petitioner who was joined as defendant No. 1/1 filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte order passed against her and requesting the court to permit her to take part in the proceedings from the date on which the ex-parte order was passed against her. The trial court has rightly held that the petitioner alongwith the other legal representatives of the deceased would be entitled to take part in the proceedings from the stage of the death of the defendant and that the said legal heirs including the petitioner could lead the evidence, if she chooses so. It also appears that the petitioner had taken up the contention that only Ajeet Khandelwal be impleaded as the legal heir of the deceased, however the same has not been accepted by the trial court. When all the legal representatives have been substituted in place of the original defendant as per the order dated 17.3.07, the petitioner could not insist that only a particular legal representative alone should be impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. 6. The petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******