ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The petition in Writ Petition Nos.104424-425/2018 being the first is taken up for consideration. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and is aggrieved by the order of the Court of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Jamkhandi, passed on IA-11 and IA-12 in O.S.No.73/2010. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is aggrieved by the finding rendered by the trial Court while disposing of IA-11 and IA-12 preferred under Order XXII Rules 4 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby permitting the petitioner in the connected writ petition and the 1st respondent herein to be impleaded as defendants 2 and 3. 5. The facts in brief are that the 1st respondent preferred IA-11 and the 2nd respondent preferred IA-12 both under Order XXII Rules 4 and 10 of the CPC. The Court after looking into the registered Will produced by the 1st respondent and the unregistered Will produced by the 2nd respondent has proceeded to hold that the parties are necessary parties and has proceeded to allow the applications and was pleased to treat them as legal representatives of the 1st defendant who expired on 22.07.2016. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of JALADI SUGUNA VS. SATYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST ( AIR 2008 SC 2866 ) and would place reliance on the ratio of the said judgment in paragraph 10 which is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: “10. 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 there is 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, it can be said that the estate of the deceased is represented. If there is 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, it can 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. 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.” 7. This Court has no quarrel with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in respect of an application preferred under Order XXII Rules 4 and 5 of the CPC which relates to the determination of the issue with regard to the legal representative of a party. There can be no doubt that when a claim under Order XXII Rule 4 is to put before the trial Court, the trial Court is bound by the mandate of provisions of Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC and the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, in the event of the status of the person being disputed, then the trial Court is required to decide the question which implies that the determination is required to be concluded after affording an opportunity to the party i.e., to the party asserting his right as a legal representative and to the party denying the same, which would necessarily infer, an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence to demonstrate their respective claims. 8. Order XXII Rule 10 speaks otherwise. It only refers to the leave of the Court for a person claiming any interest in the suit schedule properties by way of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest. Devolution of interest would also include a bequest made under a Will. If that be so, the exercise of granting leave would virtually amount to the trial Court arriving at a prima facie satisfaction, based on material, which demonstrates a prima facie case in respect of the claim of a devolution interest. Devolution of interest would also include a bequest made under a Will. If that be so, the exercise of granting leave would virtually amount to the trial Court arriving at a prima facie satisfaction, based on material, which demonstrates a prima facie case in respect of the claim of a devolution interest. As otherwise, if the same is to be interpreted in the manner as set out under Rule 5 or if Rule 10 is to be equated with the rigor of Rule 5, it would virtually amount to holding a full fledged trial, as it is settled law that the propounder of a Will is required to demonstrate and prove the Will in accordance with the provisions of Sections 64 and 65 of the Evidence Act and also dispel and repel any of the attendant factors which are capable of vitiating the execution of the Will. This Court is constrained to hold as above in view of the language employed by the Legislature while drafting the respective provisions. 9. The provisions of Rule 5 mandates that “such question shall be determined by the Court” which clearly implies that the said provision is mandatory and the Court trying the suit has to determine the said question before proceeding with the trial. On the other hand, Rule 10 speaks of a leave being granted by the Court to enable the person claiming such interest to continue the suit. In essence, the person would stand in the shoes of an interested party akin to the parties as visualized in the provisions of sub Rule (1) of Rule 10 of Order 22. 10. Hence, the finding of the trial Court that the defendants are entitled to come on record as legal representatives is contrary to the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra. The trial Court also could not have rendered a finding in the absence of the parties having proved the Will in accordance with law. The said finding requires to be set aside primarily on the ground of the trial Court having failed to comply with the mandate of the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XXII of the CPC. Hence, the finding rendered while allowing the applications and holding the applicants/respondents 1 and 2 as legal representatives is set aside. 11. Be that as it may. Hence, the finding rendered while allowing the applications and holding the applicants/respondents 1 and 2 as legal representatives is set aside. 11. Be that as it may. It is fairly admitted by the counsel that both the impleaded parties have set up a Will, which Will is yet to be demonstrated and proved in accordance with law. In the light of the fact that the case of the defendants/respondents 1 and 2 herein is based on a Will, alleged to have been executed by the deceased defendant, the order allowing the application in the opinion of the Court does not require interference as setting aside the order and remanding it back to the trial Court would only lead to further loss of judicial time as it would involve duplication of an exercise which the Court has already performed. 12. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the defendants are necessary parties for a complete adjudication of the lis and the rights of the parties putforth by the respondents 1 and 2 and the plaintiff or otherwise it would only lead to multiplicity of proceedings, as both the respondents, who have been impleaded as defendants are entitled to file and maintain independent proceedings to assert the alleged right said to have been bequeathed upon them. 13. Hence, in the interest of administration of justice, it is necessary that the order passed by the trial Court on IA-11 and IA-12 be affirmed after setting aside the finding rendered by the trial Court holding the respondents 1 and 2 to be the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant. The cause of the Courts is dispensation of justice. 14. Accordingly, petitions are disposed of by holding that the respondents 1 and 2 are necessary parties who are required to be heard in the matter and the order impugned is partially modified by setting aside the finding holding the respondents 1 and 2 as legal representatives. It goes without saying that the respondents 1 and 2 would be required to demonstrate the execution and prove the Will as required under law in order to establish their right and it is for the trial Court to consider the same and grant them relief in accordance with law. Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. 15. It goes without saying that the respondents 1 and 2 would be required to demonstrate the execution and prove the Will as required under law in order to establish their right and it is for the trial Court to consider the same and grant them relief in accordance with law. Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. 15. In view of the order passed by this Court disposing of the connected writ petitions by upholding the rights of the respondents 1 and 2 therein to agitate the suit as interested parties in lieu of the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 and Order I Rule 10 (2), Writ Petition No.106647/2018 is rendered infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.