JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff(s) instituted a suit, for, rendition, of, a decree qua specific performance of agreement to sell executed, on 14.01.2007, inter se the plaintiffs, and, the defendant. During the pendency of the suit co-plaintiff No.1 Gulab Singh died, and, upon his demise, an application was instituted, by one Kamla Devi, widow of deceased Gulab Singh, for hers, being susbstituted in his place, as, a co-plaintiff in the array, of, plaintiffs. An averment is also borne therein that apart, from, the aforesaid Kamla Devi, another legal heir, of, the deceased, one Vikesh Thakur already standing arrayed, as, coplaintiff No.2. it is also averred therein qua one Ritesh Thakur, another son of the deceased being also the legal heir, of, deceased co-plaintiff Gulab Singh, yet, the aforesaid Kamla Devi, avers, therein qua her and the already arrayed co-plaintiff Vikesh Thakur, are, rather sufficiently representing the estate, of, the deceased, hence, the impleadment of another son of the deceased, namely, Ritesh Kumar, in, the array of co-plaintiff being not necessary. No reply to the aforesaid application was filed, and, rather on 4.11.2014, the learned trial Court recorded, an affirmative pronouncement thereon. Subsequent thereto, the defendant instituted, an application, unfolding, therein qua on demise, of, coplaintiff Gulab Singh, his estate, apart from Kamla Devi, and, Vikesh Thakur, also, devolving upon Ritesh Thakur, and, his three daughters, one amongst whom, is, therein averred, to be unmarried, (i) hence, for recording an efficacious and conclusive decree, vis-a-vis the suit property also for bestowing, the, apt benefits of any affirmative decree, as may be, rendered, vis-a-vis, all the legal heirs of deceased co-plaintiff Gulab Singh, their impleadment rather being just and proper. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned trial Court. 2. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned trial Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing, for the respondent has contended with much vigour, before this Court, that, the apt parlance borne by, the, statutory coinage, "legal representative", embodied in Section 2(11) of the CPC, the relevant provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "(11) "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued;" (a) is qua, its, also encompassing any person, who represents the estate of a deceased person, and, also includes any person, who, intermeddles with the estate of deceased, and, with the mandate of Order 22, Rule 3 of the CPC, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "3. Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiff or of sole plaintiff.- "(1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to the sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative, of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff." (I) making clear bespeaking, qua, upon the demise, of one or more or several plaintiffs, and, upon occurrence of demise of one amongst them, and, with the right to sue surviving, vis-a-vis, co-plaintiffs arrayed with the deceased co-plaintiff, thereupon, there being no imperative necessity, for the substitution of the deceased litigant, (ii) hence, on anvil thereof, the, retention in the array of coplaintiffs, of, Vikas Thakur, admittedly the legal heir of deceased co-plaintiff Gulab Singh, being proper, and, also contends, that, if within its ambit, the right, to sue survive, vis-a-vis, his legal heirs, thereupon, the, substitution only of one Kamla Devi, the widow of deceased co-plaintiff Gulab Singh, being appropriate, (iii) given "hers" within the domain, of, the statutory signification acquired by the coinage "legal representative", borne in Section 2(11) of the CPC, rather hence alongwith already arrayed coplaintiff No.2, rather befittingly representing the estate of the deceased, (iv) reiteratedly especially when she avers therein, qua her impleadment along with one Vikas Thakur, already impleaded, as, co-plaintiff, being adequate, and, also being construable to be meteing, the, apt requirement of law, qua both hence, rather adequately and sufficiently representing the estate, of, deceased coplaintiff Gulab Singh, thereupon, rendering unnecessary, the, impladment, of, other legal heirs, of, deceased coplaintiff Gulab Singh. 3. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, (a) given the character, and, nature of the suit. 3. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, (a) given the character, and, nature of the suit. Visibly the suit, is, instituted for rendition of a decree, of specific performance, of, agreement to sell, executed inter se the co-plaintiffs and the defendant, hence, for ensuring accruals or bestowals, of, all benefits, of, an apt decree, if any, pronounced, for, specific performance, of, contract, vis-a-vis, all the legal heirs of deceased co-plaintiff No.1, (b) thereupon, obviously, hence, the mere impeladment, of, Kamla Devi, the widow of deceased co-plaintiff, and, of already arrayed co-plaintiff Vikesh Thakur, rather disempowering all, of, them, to, on demise of co-plaintiff No.1 Gulab Singh, hence acquire the benefits of a decree, if any, rendered qua the apt agreement, executed inter se the co-plaintiffs, and, the defendants, (c) nor hence the aforesaid Kamla Devi, and, Vikash Thakur, can be concluded, of, theirs rather sufficiently representing the estate of deceased co-plaintiff, Gulab Singh, nor hence, also imperatively on their behalf. Reiteratedly, they rather are precluded, upon, on occurrence of demise of the aforesaid, and, in absence of their impleadment in the array of the co plaintiffs , to, hence derive, benefits, if, any, qua rendition of a decree of specific performance, as may be recorded, vis-a-vis, the apt agreement, unless, of course, they are directed to be joined as co-plaintiffs, after, the demise of co-plaintiff No.1 Gulab Singh. 4. Be that as it may, the respondents'' counsel, has contended, that, with the petitioner, not, casting any challenge, upon, the orders rendered on 4.11.2014, hence, it acquires conclusivity, and, the orders made, on, application filed, under, Section 151 of the CPC, whereon, a challenge is reared, rather also concomitantly, hence, not warranting any affirmative pronouncement, being recorded thereon. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, (i) given even if the order pronounced on 4.11.2014, for want of any challenge being cast thereon, does acquire conclusivity, yet with the mandate borne in Rule 5 Order 22, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "5. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, (i) given even if the order pronounced on 4.11.2014, for want of any challenge being cast thereon, does acquire conclusivity, yet with the mandate borne in Rule 5 Order 22, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "5. 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" (i) enjoining upon the trial judge, upon, sparking of, (a) dispute, vis-a-vis, the apt legal representatives, of, the deceased litigant, to hence mete an apt adjudication thereon, (ii) thereupon, the application filed under Section 151 of the CPC, and, its containing the aforesaid averments, and, its standing instituted subsequent to the pronouncement made on 4.11.2014, hence, is construable to be falling, within, the domain of Order 22, Rule 5 of the CPC, thereupon, any disaffirmative pronouncement recorded thereon, for reasons aforestated, is amenable, for, being quashed and set aside, dehors, no challenge being cast, vis-a-vis, an earlier therewith order pronounced, on an application cast, under the provisions , of, Order, 22, Rule 3, CPC. 5. For the foregoing reasons, and, with the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is allowed. In sequel, the order impugned before this Court is set aside. Consequently, all the legal heirs of deceased co-plaintiff No.1, are ordered to be substituted in his place, in, the apposite array of co-plaintiffs. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court, on 30th August, 2018. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.