Judgment : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 4.5.2002 passed by the learned judge of the trial Court dismissing Application Exhibit 35 filed under Order 26 Rule 10 of CPC on the ground that the legal heirs of the Defendants who has expired on 23.1.2002 have not been brought on record. By an Application at Exhibit 51 the Petitioner pointed out that on 22.4.02 an Application was filed for bringing names of the legal heirs of Defendant No.1 on record. That was allowed and the legal heirs of the Defendant No.1 have also been brought on record. This Application is rejected by an order dated 2.12.2002. Hence, this is also the subject matter of challenge in this Petition. 3. The first order passed on 4.5.3002 proceeds on misconception of facts that the legal heirs of Defendant No.1 have not been brought on record. The order dated 2.12.2002 holds that the order has already been passed and hence the Court has no jurisdiction to review such order. In view of the fact that the legal heirs of the Defendant No. have been already been brought on record, both orders impugned cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. Orders dated 4.5.2002 and 2.12.2002 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 1996 are hereby quashed and set aside. The trial Court is directed to proceed with to decide the Application at Exhibit 35. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.