JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard learned counsel on behalf of the revisionists (who are son and real daughter-in-law of deceased plaintiff-Smt. Uma Rani Chandna) and learned counsel on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 (who are real daughters of deceased-plaintiff) nay learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.3 – Dr. Mukesh Dhanda (who is the purchaser of sale deed wherefor Suit No.60 of 2006 was instituted for cancellation), it transpires that the trouble erupted when the plaintiff Smt. Uma Chandna died on 4.7.2010. 2. After her death, amendment application was moved on 6.9.2010 for substitution as well as transposition by respondent nos.1 and 2- Smt. Shefali Bhaskar and Smt. Rachna Srivastava. That application was moved within the time limitation. On the other hand, revisionists also moved an application seeking their transposition as well as substitution in place of deceased/plaintiff. Learned Trial Court rejected the application moved by the revisionists but allowed such application moved by daughters. Feeling aggrieved, the son and real daughter-in-law have come up in this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the precedent of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Jaladi Suguna (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Satya Sai Central Trust & others’ 2008 (8) SCC 521 , citing the law as envisaged under Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. I feel that after going through each and every pleading of the Original Suit No.60 of 2006, as has been averred by the deceased-plaintiff, it would be quite anomalous and embarrassing and against the law as well, in permitting the transposition and substitution of revisionists in place of the deceased-plaintiff. The deceased-plaintiff has made several allegations against the revisionists and the Court does not want to reproduce the same and burden this short judgment again. The deceased-plaintiff has made several allegations against the revisionists and the Court does not want to reproduce the same and burden this short judgment again. But, at the same time, as regards the emphasis of learned counsel for the revisionist, on the last three lines of paragraph no.24 of the pleading of plaint in O.S. 60/2006 ‘that the allegations were also raised against daughters highlighting their conspiracy against the deceased-plaintiff’, the Court does not agree with such contention for the reason that this was not an allegation but the primary averment was that the defendant nos.4 and 5 (daughters) were either misled by revisionists, as a result of inducing them also for putting their signatures as well as to remain silent and permit the deceased-plaintiff to sign on the questioned deed dated 29.1.2004. In substitution application, the legal heirs are not to be determined in the strict sense, as has been contemplated under the Indian Succession Act but the legal representatives who are more suitable, acceptable and appropriate to represent the deceased-plaintiff. 5. Making discussion regarding the validity of alleged will dated 24.1.2007 in favour of daughters, which is being made basis for transposition as well as substitution, may prejudice the Trial Judge in adjudication of Original Suit No.643 of 1997, so, this Court does not want to make any comment on the validity and genuineness of such Will but at the same time, I do not want to make any comment on the validity and genuineness of the alleged Will dated 3.11.1993 in favour of Mr. Siddhartha Chandna (son of revisionists) also for the similar reasons. 6. Having meticulously considered the facts/ controversy prevailing between the parties, I have not been persuaded to take a different view other than what has been expressed by learned First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No.60 of 2006, vide his impugned order dated 25.7.2014. 7. The revision fails and is thus, dismissed.