JUDGMENT : Mahendra Dayal, J. Rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, is taken on record. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioners by means of this writ petition have approached for quashing of the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi in Civil Revision No.115 of 2004 whereby the revision has been allowed and while setting aside the order dated 29.09.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge in Suit No.94 of 1985, the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was allowed. 4. In order to resolve the controversy between the parties, the brief facts of the case are to be looked into. The original plaintiff Shiv Charan Singh (since deceased) filed a suit against the original defendant Rajveer Singh (since deceased) for cancellation of Will dated 12.07.1984 executed by Narayan Singh in favour of Rajveer Singh. During the pendency of suit, the original plaintiff Shiv Charan Singh died on 13.06.1989 and an application for substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was moved on the ground that Shiv Charan Singh had executed a registered Will on 17.07.1985 giving his property to the respondents. It was also said in the application that they were in possession of the property after the death of Shiv Charan Singh and there is no other legal representative of the deceased Shiv Charan Singh. 5. The petitioners opposed the substitution application and challenged the Will dated 17.07.1985 allegedly executed by Shiv Charan Singh. It was also said that after the execution of Will dated 12.07.1984, Shiv Charan Singh had no right to execute a subsequent Will on 17.07.1985. The respondents in order to prove the Will executed in their favour, examined the marginal witnesses but the trial court rejected the substitution application. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when Shiv Charan Singh had executed a Will on 12.07.1984 then there was no occasion for him to have executed a second Will on 17.07.1985. The learned Additional Civil Judge had initially allowed the application for substitution vide its order dated 07.08.1989. 6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when Shiv Charan Singh had executed a Will on 12.07.1984 then there was no occasion for him to have executed a second Will on 17.07.1985. The learned Additional Civil Judge had initially allowed the application for substitution vide its order dated 07.08.1989. However, the said order was challenged before the District Judge, Hardoi by means of Civil Revision No.42 of 1989 which was decided on 10.11.1989 whereby the order dated 07.08.1989 was set aside and the trial court was directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of direction given by the revision court. 7. After the aforesaid order of the revisional court, the learned trial court heard the substitution matter afresh and by the order dated 29.09.2004 rejected the substitution application. This order was again challenged by way of revision No.115 of 2004 which was allowed by the impugned order. It has also been submitted that one Indar Bahadur Singh had filed a suit No.77 of 1984 against Narayan Singh and other for the relief of the permanent injunction. In the said suit, the respondent no.3 was also one of the defendants and upon the death of Shiv Charan Singh, he sought his substitution as successor of Shiv Charan Singh. The impugned order is erroneous because the revisional court allowed the revision and the substitution application because in regular suit No.77 of 1984, the substitution application was allowed on the basis of Will but the learned court below ignored the fact that both the cases were different. 8. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that against the order dated 20.08.2002 passed in Regular Suit No.77 of 1984 it was challenged before this Court in Civil Revision No.65 of 2003 which was dismissed on the ground that the trial court proceeded to allow the substitution application after the Will was duly proved. It was also observed by this Court that while dismissing the revision that the question regarding validity of Will can be adjudicated as and when the case is finally decided but for the limited purpose of substitution, the trial court had come to the conclusion that the respondents had a right to be substituted. It was also observed by this Court that while dismissing the revision that the question regarding validity of Will can be adjudicated as and when the case is finally decided but for the limited purpose of substitution, the trial court had come to the conclusion that the respondents had a right to be substituted. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that when in one proceeding, the respondents have been substituted on the basis of Will, the learned courts below have not committed any illegality in allowing the substitution application. 9. On due consideration of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 10. The writ petition is dismissed.