JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By the impugned order dated 21.5.2012 the learned trial Court in a suit for injunction filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, a partnership firm, M/s. Pyar Chand Roop Lai Nagda, represented by, one of its partner, namely, Bhanwar Lai Nagda S/o Khubi Lai against the defendants, namely, Roop Lai S/o Pyarchand Nagda, Dhoolchand @ Vijay Kumar S/o Roop Lai Nagda and Nitesh Kumar S/o Roop Lai, has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff, partnership firm under.Order 22 Rule 4, C.P.C. 3. By the impugned order dated 21.5.2012 the learned Court below while rejecting the application for bringing all the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1-Roop Lai, who also claimed to be partners in the said partnership firm, held that all the legal representatives of deceased Roop Lai need not be taken on record on the application under Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. of the plaintiffs - firm under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C., since the deceased defendant No. 1-Roop Lai S/o Pyar Chand Nagda had executed a "Will" on 19.11.2004, which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Udaipur, the; defendant, Roop Lai had bequeathed his share in the said partnership firm on his two sons, who were already on record as defendants No. 2 and 3 in the said suit; and therefore, all other legal representatives including the daughters of the deceased defendant, Roop Lai were not required to be impleaded in the suit. 4. Mr. Deelip Kawadia, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal v. Krishna Bansal & Anr., reported in 2010 DNJ (SC) 32 (Para 9) , the learned trial Court ought to have impleaded all the legal representatives in the suit, lest such other legal representatives denied the existence of the said Will later on and even if the plaintiff-firm had a decree against the said existing defendants No. 2 and 3, the same would not be an executable against such other legal representatives, therefore, the learned Court below has erred in not bringing all the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1-Roop Lai. 5. None has appeared on behalf of respondents and it appears that 'requires PF and notices have not been filed by the counsel for the petitioner so far for effecting service on the respondents. 6. 5. None has appeared on behalf of respondents and it appears that 'requires PF and notices have not been filed by the counsel for the petitioner so far for effecting service on the respondents. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 21.5.2012 does not require any interference by this Court in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of taking the.legal representatives on record upon the death of one of defendants is to confer the right to sue on the remaining defendants in whom the right to sue or pursue the lis survives and who can represent the interest of the. deceased defendant. The Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C., in clear terms, states that where one of two or more defendants dies and the right 1o sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit, 7. Admittedly, in the present case, the two sons, who claimed to represent the interest of deceased defendant No. 1-Roop Lai, are already on record of the suit in the present case and therefore, upon death of defendant No. 1-Roop Lai, they could continue to contest the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, firm for the limited purpose of allowing them to pursue the present litigation, the learned Court below does not appear to have committed any error in not taking on record the other legal representatives of deceased defendant, Roop Lai. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff himself that possible dispute about the "Will" executed by the deceased, Roop Lai on 19.11.2004 could not be determined in the present suit, therefore, on the same basis, not taking the other legal representatives of defendant No. I on record in the present case, is justified by his own contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. 8. 8. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Suresh Chand Bansal (supra) in para 9 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "9....In order to shorten the litigation and to consider the rival claims of the parties, in our view, the proper course to follow is to bring all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff on record including the legal representatives who are claiming on the basis of the Will of the deceased plaintiff so that all the legal representatives namely, the appellant and the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff can represent the estate of the deceased for the ultimate ben fit of the real legal representatives. If this process is followed, this would also avoid delay in disposal of the suit. In view of our discussion made herein above, we are, therefore, of the view that the High Court as well as the trial Court were not at all justified in rejecting the application for implement filed at the instance of the appellant based on the alleged Will of the deceased plaintiff at this stage of the proceedings." 9. In the aforesaid cited case, the suit was filed for seeking eviction by the plaintiff on the basis of "Will" instead of the beneficiary of the Will. The Apex Court considered it appropriate to bring all the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff on record, so that the executed and just to avoid the future possible dispute between the legal representative of plaintiff, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 'in order to shorten the litigation', passed the orders to this effect. 10. The situation in the present case is reverse. Here in the instant case, in the partnership dispute, the father (one of the partner). and two sons, who also claimed to be the partners in the said firm, were contesting the suit filed by one of the partner by the firm itself as the plaintiff. 10. The situation in the present case is reverse. Here in the instant case, in the partnership dispute, the father (one of the partner). and two sons, who also claimed to be the partners in the said firm, were contesting the suit filed by one of the partner by the firm itself as the plaintiff. Upon death of defendant No. 1-Roop Lai, on the basis of "Will" executedeby him (Roop Lai), which was duly registered also, the learned Court below has rightly found that since the two beneficiaries of the said Will, who were already on record, could represent the interest of all three including the estate of defendant No. 1 in the said dispute, rightly did not consider it appropriate to bring on record all the other legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1, Roop Lai. 11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the possible future dispute about the Will could not be made the subject matter of the present litigation pending trial before the Court below, therefore, the other legal representatives were not required to be brought on record. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the plaintiffs application under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C., in the aforesaid manner, deserves to be affirmed instead of being interfered by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of above, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the learned Court below [Civil Judge (Jr. division), Udaipur City South, Udaipur] forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******