JUDGMENT Asim Kumar Mondal, J. Petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for Specific Performance of Contract of the agreement dated 1st November, 2010 against the defendants who are opposite parties in the present application. In course of trial of the said suit being No. T.S. 1/2011, the defendant No. 2 reported that the defendant No. 1 Mst. Marium Bibi died on 18th February, 2011 in Uttar Pradesh. She died unmarried and intestate. Petitioner filed one petition under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for substitution. Admittedly the defendants of the suit No. T.S. 1 /2011 also filed one suit as plaintiffs against the defendant company (plaintiff of T.S. No. 1/2011) for eviction after expiry of lease being No. 86/2006. In the said suit being No. T.S. 86/2006, it is contended, that defendants No. 3 to 6 are the legal heirs of one Ayesha Khatun, who is the sister of deceased defendant No. 1. Right to sue surviving upon the legal heirs of Ayesha Khatun. The said Ayesha Khatun’s husband, defendant No. 2 is not entitled to the estate of deceased defendant No. 1. Therefore, plaintiff/petitioner prayed for substitution of defendants No. 3 to 6 as legal heirs in place of defendant No. 1 after expunging the name of defendant No. 1 Learned Trial Court, after hearing both sides, ordered to substitute defendants Nos. 2 to 6 in place of defendant No. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order impugned dated 19th March, 2012 preferred the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the grounds that, Learned Court below illegally and with material irregularities has been allowed the petition substituting defendants No. 2 to 6 as legal heirs in place of deceased defendant No. 1. In view of the grounds as narrated in the petition filed by the defendants who are opposite parties in the present application against the prayer for substitution are mainly on two folds. First it is objected that the petition for substitution filed by the petitioner company is under Order 22 Rule 2, which should have been under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Secondly, it is objected that the husband of Ayesha Khatun who is defendant No. 2 of the suit should be substituted along with other defendant Nos. First it is objected that the petition for substitution filed by the petitioner company is under Order 22 Rule 2, which should have been under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. Secondly, it is objected that the husband of Ayesha Khatun who is defendant No. 2 of the suit should be substituted along with other defendant Nos. 3 to 6, as husband is also the sharer of the property left by wife and right to sue survives against the other defendants. Admittedly defendant No. 2 who is husband of Ayesha Khatun has been brought to be substituted in the objection petition filed by the defendants. Against such objection petition and order of the Court passed on 19.03.2012 the petitioner / plaintiffs company has raised objection containing that the husband of Ayesha Khatun is not the legal heirs to inherit the property of wife. In the impugned judgment learned Trial Court has observed that the issue is as to whether the husband of Ayesha Khatun can be considered as legal heirs of the defendant No. 1 who died as issueless and spinster. On the contrary no comments followed in respect of the other legal heirs being the defendant Nos. 3 to 6. Admittedly they are the legal heirs of Ayesha Khatun. Learned Trial Court has also correctly observed that Ayesha Khatun being the sister of the deceased defendant No. 1 Marium Bibi is the legal heir in view of the norms and provisions of Mohameddan Law in the event she had been alive. In the event of her death the defendant Nos. 2 to 6 being her legal heirs are entitled to claim themselves to be substituted in place of defendant No. 1. It has been observed by the learned Trial Court that husband is a sharer as per Mohameddan Law and he shall inherit in case of a Mohameddan family also. In view of the provision under Section 75 of Mollah’s Mohameddan Law the estate is to be divided amongst the roots that is to say, among the brothers and sisters as if they were living and in so doing each brother who has two or more claimants descendent from him, is to be treated as so many brothers and his sister who has two or more claimants descendants from her is to be treated as so many sisters. Learned Trial Court relying upon the annotation of Muslim Law by Syed Khalid Rashid, where a table of share has been provided has come to the conclusion that when there is child or child of a son, he gets 1/4th share and where there is no child he get ½ share. Finally, learned Trial Judge has rightly opined that the husband of Ayesha Khatun being the defendant No. 2 is a legal heir of defendant No. 1. After considering the submissions of learned Advocates appearing for the parties and also after considering the views expressed in the principle of Mohammedan Law by Mollah I do not find any error or wrong has been committed by the learned Trial Judge to hold that the defendant No. 2 is the legal heir of defendant No. 1 who may be substituted in place of defendant No. 1 along with defendant Nos. 3 to 6. The question raised as to the caption of the petition is not so important as it is the settled principle of law that Court is to consider the actual prayers made in the petition and relief sought for. Wrong caption of the petition should not give any importance. The enquiry into right to heirship is not determining factor in deciding where a person is or is not a legal representative for the purpose of proceeding before the Court where there are several representatives. There is no abatement if only some of them are brought on record in the suit or appeal. It is well settled that the object of substitution of heir after the death of a party in the suit is only for the purpose of bringing the legal representative or continuing and conducting the legal proceeding. It does not decide inter se dispute between the claimants nor does it operate as red judicata in a subsequent disputes between the several claimants. Considering all aspects and in view of the materials on record and observation each findings of the learned Trial Court I do not find any ground to interfere into the order impugned holding that the same suffers from illegality and materials irregularity. In the result the instant revisional application is liable to be dismissed. Thus the revisional application is dismissed without costs.