JUDGMENT 1. - These writ petitions have been filed by Jugal Kishore Ladda and Smt. Santosh Devi respectively aggrieved against order dated 03.05.2014, whereby, the separate applications filed by them under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC seeking impleadment as legal representatives of deceased Nand Lal have been accepted and both have been directed to be impleaded as legal representatives of deceased Nand Lal - plaintiff. 2. One Nand Lal Ladda filed a suit against defendant No. 1 - Kamlesh Ajmera for redemption of mortgage, possession and mesne profit; plaintiff - Nand Lal died during pendency of the suit on 14.02.2013; petitioner - Jugal Kishore Ladda in Civil Writ Petition No. 5558/2014 filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, inter alia, claiming that he along with Smt. Shakuntala, Ramesh Chandra Ladda, Suresh Chandra Ladda and Smt. Madhu Ajmera were legal representatives of deceased Nand Lal and only petitioner - Jugal Kishore was interested in being impleaded as legal representative of the plaintiff and, therefore, rest of the legal representatives be impleaded as formal parties; where after, another application was filed by Smt. Santosh Devi - petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 2506/2015 under Order 22, Rule 3 and 11 read with Section 151 CPC (wrongly indicated as Order 22, Rule 4 CPC), inter alia, claiming that the disputed property has been bequeathed by deceased Nand Lal - plaintiff in her favour by Will dated 10.02.2013 and, therefore, the petitioner is now the owner of the said property and entitled to be impleaded as party in place of the plaintiff. 3. A reply to the application filed by Jugal Kishore was also filed by Smt. Santosh Devi disputing the claim made by Jugal Kishore on account of the Will having been executed in her favour. 4. Jugal Kishore also filed reply to the application filed by Smt. Santosh Devi and contended that the application filed by him was correct; no Will was executed by Nand Lal in favour of Smt. Santosh Devi; the Will produced was forged; Smt. Santosh Devi was not in possession of the suit property as owner but only in her capacity as daughter-in-law of Nand Lal and, therefore, she cannot be impleaded as party. Suit for cancellation of Will was being filed and, as soon as the applicant became aware of the Will, he has disputed the same; Smt. Santosh Devi is not a necessary party and, therefore, the application filed by her deserves to be dismissed. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties by its order dated 03.05.2014, came to the conclusion that in the suit at the stage of deciding the application, the genuineness of the Will and right based on the Will cannot be decided and, therefore, it appears justified to implead all the children of deceased Nand Lal and Smt. Santosh Devi as party; the trial court further ordered that as applications have been filed by Jugal Kishore and Smt. Santosh Devi, Jugal Kishore was ordered to be impleaded as plaintiff No. 1/1 and Smt. Santosh Devi was ordered to be impleaded as plaintiff No. 1/2 and rest of the children were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 to 4. 6. The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Jugal Kishore, wherein, notices were ordered to be issued to Smt. Santosh Devi; after service of notice, Smt. Santosh Devi also challenged the order passed by the trial court. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for Jugal Kishore that the trial court fell in error in not determining the legal representatives as required by Order 22, Rule 5 CPC and committed serious illegality in impleading both the children and the legatee as legal representatives of deceased - Nand Lal; it was incumbent on the trial court to determine the issue of legal representative and, in absence whereof, the order cannot be sustained; it was also submitted that petitioner - Jugal Kishore has filed a suit for cancellation of the Will, which is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court and Smt. Santosh Devi has not obtained any probate and she remains a busybody based on a Will, validity whereof, is yet to be established. 8. Strong reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 521 . 9. 8. Strong reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 521 . 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Santosh Devi vehemently submitted that based on the Will it was only the petitioner - Smt. Santosh Devi, who could have been impleaded as legal representative, as on account of execution of the Will by deceased Nand Lal, the suit property vests in the petitioner and right to sue survives in her alone and the other legal representatives could not have been impleaded as party to the suit and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karedla Parthasaradhi v. Gangula Ramanamma : 2015 (1) CCC 341 (SC). 11. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material placed on record in both the writ petitions. 12. It is not in dispute that the applicant-petitioner - Jugal Kishore and other persons named in the application filed by him are natural heirs of deceased Nand Lal and petitioner - Smt. Santosh Devi, daughter-in-law of deceased Nand Lal is claiming right over the suit property based on the Will said to have been executed by deceased Nand Lal in her favour; it has been indicated in the reply filed by Jugal Kishore to the application filed by Smt. Santosh Devi that he was soon going to file a suit seeking cancellation of the Will and it is informed that suit in fact has been filed by him seeking cancellation of the Will and the same is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court; the challenge made by both the petitioners to the order passed by the trial court is similar that either of them should not have been impleaded as party and, it is the respective petitioner alone, who should have been impleaded as legal representative of deceased Nand Lal and the trial court should have conducted inquiry under Order 22, Rule 5 CPC and where after based on its conclusion should have ordered for impleadment. 13. 13. Strong reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaladi Suguna (supra), wherein, the provisions of Section 2(11) and Order 22, Rule 3 , 4, 5 and 11 CPC have been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- “14. When a respondent in an appeal dies, and the right to sue survives, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent have to be brought on record before the court can proceed further in the appeal. Where the respondent-plaintiff who has succeeded in the suit, dies during the pendency of the appeal, any judgment rendered on hearing the appeal filed by the defendant, without bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent-plaintiff on record, will be a nullity. In the appeal before the High Court, the first respondent therein (Suguna) was the contesting respondent and the second respondent (the tenant) was only a pro forma respondents. When the first respondent in the appeal died, the right to prosecute the appeal survived against her estate. Therefore, it was necessary to bring the legal representative(s) of the deceased Suguna on record to proceed with the appeal. 15. Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does not amount to bringing the legal representatives on record. When an LR application is filed, the court should consider it and decide whether the persons named therein as the legal representatives, should be brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased. Until such decision by the court, the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have no right to represent the estate of the deceased, nor prosecute or defend the case. If in there a dispute as to who is the legal representative, a decision should be rendered on such dispute. Only when the question of legal representative is determined by the court and such legal representative is brought on record, can it be said that the estate of the deceased is represented. The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22, Rule 5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22, Rule 5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. Such determination for such limited purpose will not confer on the person held to be the legal representative, any right to the property which is the subject-matter of the suit, vis-a-vis other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased. 16. The provisions of Rules 4 and 5 of Order 22 are mandatory. When a respondent in an appeal dies, the court cannot simply say that it will hear all rival claimants to the estate of the deceased respondent and proceed to dispose of the appeal. Nor can it implead all persons claiming to be legal representatives, as parties to the appeal without deciding who will represent the estate of the deceased, and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. The court cannot also postpone the decision as to who is the legal representative of the deceased respondent, for being decided along with the appeal on merits. The Code clearly provides that where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased respondent, such question shall be determined by the court. The Code also provides that where one of the respondents dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving respondents, the court shall, on an application made in that behalf, cause the legal representatives of the deceased respondent to be made parties, and then proceed with the case. Though Rule 5 does not specifically provide that determination of legal representative should precede the hearing of the appeal on merits, Rule 4 read with Rule 11 makes it clear that the appeal can be heard only after the legal representatives are brought on record.” 14. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the petitioner - Jugal Kishore on the aspect that the Court cannot implead all the persons claiming to be legal representatives as parties without deciding who will represent the estate of the deceased; it was emphasised that the trial court was bound to decide the validity and genuineness of the Will before allowing impleadment of Smt. Santosh Devi as party and, in absence whereof, she could not have been impleaded as a party. 15. 15. The judgment in the case of Jaladi Suguna (supra) came for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Bansal v. Krishna Bansal & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 162 , wherein, on an application filed by natural heir and legatee under a Will of the deceased plaintiff, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Will of the deceased plaintiff did not seem to have been executed by him and, therefore, the legatee under the Will was not entitled to be substituted in the suit, which order was ultimately upheld by the High Court and further Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal observed as under:- “14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order as well as the application for substitution of the appellant on the basis of the will alleged to have been executed by the deceased plaintiff, we are of the view that the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be interfered with and the application for impleadment filed at the instance of the appellant on the basis of the will alleged to have been executed by the deceased plaintiff must be allowed and the appellant must be impleaded in the suit along with the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, subject to grant of probate by a competent court of law. 15. It is true that in the impugned order, the High Court has made it clear that the finding regarding genuineness of the will was made only for the purpose of deciding the application for impleadment filed at the instance of the appellant. But, in our view, if at this stage, the appellant is not permitted to be impleaded and in the event an order of eviction is passed ultimately against the respondent tenant, the tenants will be evicted by the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff who thereby shall take possession of the suit premises, but if ultimately the probate of the alleged will of the deceased plaintiff is granted by the competent court of law, the suit property would devolve on the appellant but not on the natural heirs and legal representative of the deceased. Therefore, in the event of grant of probate in favour of the appellant, he has to take legal proceeding against the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit premises from them which would involve not only huge expenses but also considerable time would be spent to get the suit premises recovered from the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. 16. On the other hand, if the appellant is allowed to carry on the eviction petition along with the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, in that case a decree can be passed for eviction of the tenant when the appellant shall not be entitled to get possession from the tenants in respect of the suit premises until the probate in question is granted and produced before the Court. Therefore, ultimately if the court grants a decree for eviction of the respondent tenant from the suit premises, such decree shall be passed subject to production of probate by the appellant. 17. That apart, since the question of genuineness of the will cannot be conclusively gone into by the court in a proceeding for substitution in a pending eviction suit and in view of the fact that an application was made at the instance of the appellant for impleadment as a legal representative of the deceased on the basis of the will which is yet to be probated, in our view, the best course open to the court is to allow impleadment of the appellant in the eviction proceeding, thereby permitting him to proceed with the eviction suit along with natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, but in case the decree is to be passed for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises such eviction decree shall be subject to the grant of probate of the will alleged to have been executed by the deceased plaintiff. 18. At the same time, it is clear that in case the will of the deceased plaintiff is found not to be genuine and probate is not granted, the court shall proceed to grant the eviction decree in favour of the Respondent 1 and not in favour of the appellant. 18. At the same time, it is clear that in case the will of the deceased plaintiff is found not to be genuine and probate is not granted, the court shall proceed to grant the eviction decree in favour of the Respondent 1 and not in favour of the appellant. It is well settled that in the event, the will is found to be genuine and probate is granted, only the appellant would be entitled to get an order of eviction of the respondent tenants from the suit premises excluding the claim of the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. 19. The Code of Civil Procedure enjoins various provisions only for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and for adjudicating of related disputes in the same proceedings, the parties cannot be driven to different Courts or to institute different proceedings touching on different facets of the same major issue. Such a course of action will result in conflicting judgments and instead of resolving the disputes, they would end up in creation of confusion and conflict. 20. It is now well settled that determination of the question as to who is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff or defendant under Order 22, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is only for the purposes of bringing legal representatives on record for the conducting of those legal proceedings only and does not operate as res judicata and the inter se dispute between the rival legal representatives has to be independently tried and decided in probate proceedings. If this is allowed to be carried on for a decision of an eviction suit or other allied suits, the suits would be delayed, by which only the tenants will be benefited. 21. 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 benefit of the real legal representatives. If this process is followed, this would also avoid delay in disposal of the suit.” 16. If this process is followed, this would also avoid delay in disposal of the suit.” 16. While dealing with the judgment of Jaladi Suguna (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “23. Before parting with this judgment, it is necessary to consider the decision of this Court in case of Jaladi Suguna v. Satya Sai Central Trust cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellant. In Jaladi Suguna, this Court held that the interstate heir (husband) and the testamentary legatees (nieces and nephews), seeking impleadment as the heirs of the deceased respondent in an appeal have to be brought on record before the court can proceed further in the appeal. Furthermore, in that decision it was also held that a legatee under a will, who intends to represent the estate of the deceased testator, being an inter-meddler with the estate of the deceased testator, will be a legal representative. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussions and in view of the decision in Jaladi Suguna, we are also of the view that in an eviction proceeding, when a legatee under a Will intends to represent the interest of the estate of the deceased testator, he will be a legal representative within the meaning of Section 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure, for which it is not necessary in an eviction suit to decide whether the will on the basis of which substitution is sought for, is a suspicious one or that the parties must send the case back to the Probate Court for a decision whether the will was genuine or not.” Ultimately, it was directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- “25. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the High Court as well as the trial court had acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction in not impleading not only the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff but also the appellant who is claiming his impleadment on the basis of an alleged will of the deceased plaintiff. 26. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the application for impleadment filed by the appellant is allowed. 26. Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the application for impleadment filed by the appellant is allowed. For this reason, the eviction proceeding shall be carried on not only by the natural heir of the deceased plaintiff, but also the appellant who claims to be a legal representative of the deceased plaintiff on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased plaintiff. 27. But we make it clear that in the event, the probate of the will of the deceased plaintiff is not granted on the ground of genuineness of the will, it is needless to say that the natural heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff would only be entitled to get possession on the basis of inheritance of the suit property on the death of the original plaintiff. However, we also make it clear that the appellant would be entitled to obtain order of eviction of the respondent tenants if the ground taken in the plaint stand proved, but such decree for eviction shall be passed subject to grant of probate of the will of the deceased plaintiff in favour of the appellant.” 17. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal (supra), wherein, the judgment in the case of Jaladi Suguna (supra) has been considered and it has been held that in circumstances of the case of present nature both the natural heirs and the legatee under the Will may be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff; the order passed by the trial court cannot be faulted. 18. The judgment in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal (supra) was sought to be distinguished by learned counsel for Jugal Kishore on account of the fact that in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal (supra) proceedings for grant of probate were pending and in the present case Smt. Santosh Devi has not initiated any proceedings for grant of probate, however, as already noticed hereinbefore, a suit filed by Jugal Kishore seeking cancellation of the Will is said to be pending before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction, which is sufficient for the purpose of bringing the present dispute within the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal (supra). 19. 19. So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for Jugal Kishore regarding validity of the Will having not been examined by the trial court by way of enquiry under Order 22, Rule 5C PC is concerned, this Court in Radhey Shyam v. Radha Mohan Paliwal & Ors. : 2012 (4) WLN 3 after considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaladi Suguna (supra) and Suresh Kumar Bansal (supra) observed as under:- “7. In view of the above settled legal position, the legatee under the Will, who intends to represent the estate of the deceased testator, being an intermeddler with the estate of the deceased, will be a legal representative. In the instant case, the petitioner who was the legatee under the Will executed by the deceased defendant No. 1, being an intermeddler with the estate of the deceased, would be the legal representative of the deceased. Though the trial Court was required to determine as to who was the legal representative of the deceased in the enquiry under Order 22, Rule 5 CPC, such determination was only for a limited purpose and it would not confer on the person held to be legal representative, any right to the property which was the subject matter of the suit. As per the above stated legal position, such a legal representative, who is the legatee under the Will would be only entitled to represent the estate of the deceased testator and he could not be said to have any right in the suit property vis-a-vis the other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in determining the question as to the legality and the validity of the wills relied upon by the petitioner for the purpose of representing the estate of the deceased Chand Narain while conducting the enquiry under Order 22, Rule 5 CPC, and in holding that the petitioner had legally failed to prove the said Wills. The trial Court was not at all called upon to examine the validity of the said Wills in the enquiry to be conducted under Order 22, Rule 5 of CPC, which was only for the purpose of determining as to whether the petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased or not. The trial Court was not at all called upon to examine the validity of the said Wills in the enquiry to be conducted under Order 22, Rule 5 of CPC, which was only for the purpose of determining as to whether the petitioner was the legal representative of the deceased or not. The impugned order thus suffers from legal infirmity and deserves to be set aside. The petitioner being the legatee of the Will of the deceased, deserves to be permitted to represent the estate of the deceased as his legal representative in the suit. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 23.05.2012 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to be substituted as the legal representative of the deceased defendant No. 1 Chand Narain in the suit. The petition stands allowed accordingly.” 20. In view of the above, the trial court was justified in not deciding on the validity of the Will. 21. So far as the judgment in the case of Karedla Parthasaradhi (supra) is concerned, the same reiterates the law laid down by earlier judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including the judgment in the case of Jaladi Suguna (supra). 22. In view of the above discussion, in there no substance in the writ petitions filed by both the petitioners and the order passed by the trial court is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same does not require any interference by this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 23. Consequently, in there no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.Petitions Dismissed. *******