ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 31.01.2019 passed in T.S. No.42 of 2003 has been challenged by which petition filed by the plaintiff dated 05.01.2019 under Order XXII Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case in the writ petition is that a suit has been filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners herein, being T.S. No.42 of 2003 and in course of its pendency, the defendant no.4 has died on 14.06.2015 and thereafter on 30.07.2015 the defendants under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC furnished information that the deceased- defendant no.4 (Chhotelal Chik Baraik) has died on 14.06.2015 leaving behind his widow namely Bihans Devi-defendant no.3 and daughter Pratibha Devi and in pursuance to the aforesaid declaration furnished by the defendant no.3, a petition under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC has been filed for substituting the legal representative of the deceased-defendant no.4 which was allowed and defendant no.4(A) namely Pratibha Devi has been substituted as legal representative of defendant no.4, but subsequently the plaintiffs/petitioners came to know after due enquiry that the deceased-defendant no.4 has died issueless and defendant no.4 (A) is not the married daughter of the deceased-defendant no.4 rather she is married daughter of one Chamra Baraik of village Sishi Karam Toli, district Gumla and her mother’s name is Dulari Devi and therefore, a petition has been filed on 05.01.2019 by the petitioners/plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC to set up an enquiry for determination, as to whether defendant no.4 (A) is daughter of deceased-defendant no.4 on the ground that the defendants have fraudulently given wrong information under Order XXII Rule 10A of the CPC to that effect the trial court has rejected the same, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. 3. The petitioners’ ground for assailing the aforesaid order is that Pratibha Devi has been impleaded as defendant no.4(A) by substituting defendant no.4 on the information being furnished by the defendant no.3 to that effect by filing a petition under Order XXII Rule 10 A of the CPC, but subsequently it came in the knowledge of the petitioners that some mischief has been played by the defendant no.3 in furnishing the wrong declaration for impleadment of the said Pratibha Devi, who actually was not the legal heir of the defendant no.4 but the trial court when called upon to conduct an enquiry in this regard, has rejected the aforesaid petition vide impugned order, therefore, the same suffers from infirmity. 4. Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C to S.C (L & C) has submitted that the order passed under Order XXII Rule 4 has been passed way back on 21.06.2016 and thereafter the suit has been allowed to be proceeded and when it reaches to the final argument no objection has been raised ever by the plaintiffs, but at such a belated stage the petition has been filed raising objection about substitution of Pratibha Devi who has been impleaded as defendant No.4(A) and therefore, once the order has been passed on 21.06.2016 having been accepted and the petition has been disposed of, the same cannot be open under the provision of Order XXII Rule 5, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the material available on record, more particularly the finding recorded in the impugned order, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that in T.S. No.42 of 2003, the occasion has arisen for filing a petition under Order XXII Rule 4 for substitution of the defendant no.4 who has died in course of pendency of the suit and a petition has been filed by the defendant no.3 by making an application under Order XXII Rule 10A and as such an appropriate application was filed by the defendant for substitution of the defendant no.4 to that of his legal heir which has been allowed vide order dated 21.06.2016. Thereafter the suit has been proceeded and reaches to the stage of final argument and at this stage the plaintiff has filed a petition on 05.01.2019 under Order XXII Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a prayer for conducting an enquiry by determining as to whether defendant no.4(A) is the legal representative of the defendant no.4- Chhotelal Chik Baraik. 6. The aforesaid petition has been rejected by the trial court basing upon the fact that the order has been passed way back on 21.06.2016 and by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Annupam Pruthi & Ors vs. Smt. Rajen Bal & Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 2041 and the order passed by Allahabad High Court in the case reported in AIR 2007 All. 105 wherein it has been led that once the petition filed for substitution, it cannot be opened by a petition filed under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. This Court in order to look into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to refer the provision of Order XXII Rule 4 which provides the procedure in case of death of defendants or of sole defendant. If such occasion arise and a petition to that effect has been filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC the court may by taking into consideration that right to sue survives, and therefore on the basis of the said finding the defendant or defendants as the case may be is to be substituted through the legal representative/representatives. 8. If such occasion arise and a petition to that effect has been filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC the court may by taking into consideration that right to sue survives, and therefore on the basis of the said finding the defendant or defendants as the case may be is to be substituted through the legal representative/representatives. 8. Order XXII Rule 5 provides provision for determination of a question as to the legal representative, such provision can be exercised to determine 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 records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons thereof, and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question, meaning thereby filing a petition by the legal representative on record and only when the question of legal representative is determined by the Court such legal representative is brought on record. 9. The question of determination can be looked into by the trial court, if the said question if agitated by the party. 10. 9. The question of determination can be looked into by the trial court, if the said question if agitated by the party. 10. The fact of the case is that when a petition has been filed under Order XXII Rule 4 the same has not been objected by the plaintiff and in consequence thereof, the same was allowed vide order dated 21.06.2016 and thereafter the suit has been allowed to be proceeded without any objection made on the part of the petitioners/plaintiff and at much subsequent stage when the suit has been reached at the stage of argument, a petition has been filed under Order XXII Rule 5 for seeking direction to determine the status of defendant no.4(A) as to whether she is the actual legal representative of the defendant no.4 or not, but the question herein is that when an appropriate order has been passed by the trial court in exercise of power under Order XXII Rule 4 and the same has not been objected by the petitioners and thereafter the legal representative of the defendant no.4-deceased has been brought on record and led to contest the suit and subsequent thereof, after lapse of three and half years the petition has been filed under Order XXII Rule 5 for its redetermination. 11. Accordingly, according to the considered view of this Court, the said petition ought to have been filed prior to taking final decision by the trial court on a petition filed under Order XXII Rule 4, but no such petition has been filed prior to the disposal of the petition filed under Order XXII Rule 4 which has been disposed of on 21.06.2016 and thereafter the question of determination of the said issue has been raised, therefore the trial court after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Annupam Pruthi & Ors (supra) has been come to finding that once the petition under Order XXII Rule 4 has been disposed of, the order passed thereupon is not to be recalled. 12. The trial court since has passed the order basing upon the said reasoning and putting reliance upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no requirement to show any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under its revisional jurisdiction. 13. 12. The trial court since has passed the order basing upon the said reasoning and putting reliance upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no requirement to show any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under its revisional jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.