JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. Civil suit bearing No. 133/1 of 2011 was instituted by one Ran Singh against his son and grand son. In the instant civil suit he claimed a decree for possession. However, during the pendency of civil suit bearing No. 133/1 of 2011, before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, the aforesaid Ran Singh expired. On his demise, his widow one Punni Devi instituted an application cast under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, wherein she, on demise of her husband, claimed an exclusive right for representing his estate, right whereof stood anvilled upon her deceased husband making a testamentary dispositions qua it vis-a-vis her. However, in paragraph-3 of the application, she has averred of besides her, one Jasbir Singh, Ajmer Singh, Jaspal Singh, Gurmit Kaur and Smt. Satto, being respectively the sons and daughters of her deceased husband, from the latters’ previous marriage. The learned trial Court, though, issued notice upon the aforesaid application, vis-à-vis the contesting defendants, yet it failed to issue notice upon the persons referred in paragraph-3 of the application, (i) who purportedly, unless the Will propounded by Puni Devi was judicially validated, hence held alongwith her an inheritable right in the estate of deceased Ran Singh, (ii) besides thereupon, they, on his demise, too were competent, to hence represent his estate AND claim their addition in the array of co-plaintiffs. Even though, no imperative obligation is cast upon the Court below, for issuing any pre-adjudication notice upon the aforesaid application upon all the purported LRs of the deceased litigant concerned, (iii) yet when one Puni Devi had averred of deceased Ran Singh leaving behind certain persons, who thereupon may purportedly hold alongwith her an inheritable rights in the estate of Ran Singh, (iv) besides when the contesting defendant had in their reply thereto, contended that the relevant testamentary disposition, wherein Puni Devi was constituted, as the solitary legatee being a fraudulent document, thereupon in the light of the mandate of provisions of Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, the provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: Determination of question as to legal representative- Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court. Provided that where such question arises before an Appellate Court, that Court may, before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if any recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.” (v) it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court, to make an effective determination, vis-à-vis the solitary capacity of Puni Devi, to, on demise of her husband Ran Singh, seek impleadment in his place in the array of co-plaintiffs, (vi) for facilitating whereof it was enjoined to ensure elicitations from them besides from the persons enumerated in paragraph- 3, of the apposite application qua whether the testamentary disposition, stand assailed, by the purported LRs of deceased Puni Devi before the Civil Court concerned. All the aforesaid elicitations from all the purported LRs of deceased Ran Singh was imperative, given the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitting, before this Court (vii) of the aforesaid testamentary disposition standing assailed before the Civil Court concerned. Further more, unless an effective binding verdict, is recorded, upon the civil suit, instituted before the civil Court concerned, by the other legal representatives of deceased Ran Singh, (viii) thereupon concomitantly, the exclusivity of entitlement of Puni Devi, to, on demise of Ran Singh claim qua hers being the solitary befitting person to represent his estate, also cannot be concluded to be yet cinchingly established. Even though, some time may elapse in a conclusive binding judicial verdict being pronounced upon the aforesaid testamentary disposition, whereon a challenge is laid by the purported legal representatives of deceased Ran Singh, wherein the latter constituted one Puni Devi to be his solitary legatee, (ix) nonetheless, thereupon the interests in the extant litigation, of other purported LRs of deceased Ran Singh is yet enjoined to be protected (x) failing which a grave prejudice vis-à-vis their entitlements to the benefits of decree of possession, if any, pronounced upon the instant suit, would ensue, rather benefits thereof would ensue vis-à-vis them. For precluding the aforesaid legal mishaps, it was imperative for the learned trial Court, to issue notice upon them also to elicit from them, their contentions’ with respect to the espousal of one Puni Devi qua her solitary entitlement, to succeed the estate of her deceased husband, on anvil of his making a testamentary disposition vis-à-vis her, validity whereof is yet under cloud. However, the learned trial Court has misled itself, to not, serve any notice upon the other purported legal heirs of deceased Ran Singh, whereas service upon them (xi) would have, precluded an untenable event of theirs being not permitted to be arrayed along with Puni Devi in the array of co-plaintiffs. Significantly, hence the impugned order whereby solitarily one Puni Devi, on demise of her husband, hence has been permitted to succeed to his estate, also hers being made the solitarily legal representative, of the deceased plaintiff suffers, from a vice of it being rendered in gross infraction of the principles of audi alteram partem. 2. Consequently, the impugned order is reversed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned trial Court to, after affording opportunities to all the purported legal representatives of deceased Ran Singh, to, in accordance with law, make a befitting verdict qua theirs’, on demise of one Ran Singh, being entitled to represent his estate. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27.11.2017. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.