ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri P. C. Chandil counsel for the petitioner. Shri D. D. Bansal, counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Challenge is being made to the order dated 12-5-2018 passed in MJC (succession) 32/2013 whereby the application filed under Order 22, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code for bringing legal representatives of deceased Basudev and Baijnath has been allowed by the learned trial Court. 3. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that an application seeking succession certificate has been filed by late Shrilal wherein the objections has been filed by the present petitioner claiming himself to be the legal heir of Vidyaram on the strength of a Will executed by Vidyaram in his favour. The learned trial Court has allowed the application of late Shrilal and dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 20-2-1989. An appeal was preferred against the order dated 20-2-1989 and during the pendency of the appeal Shrilal has died. After death of Shrilal, Baijnath and Basudev claimed themselves to be the legal heirs of Shrilal on the strength of the alleged Will of Shrilal and prayed for substitution of their names in place of Shrilal. The petitioner objected for the same and submitted that the alleged Will is a forged document and on the basis of the forged document no right or title accrued in favour of Baijnath and Basudev. It is further alleged that the application for bringing legal heirs could have been filed by the person who are legal heirs of actual owners of the property in question. The objections raised by the petitioner were rejected vide order dated 22-12-2006 which was put to challenge by filing a writ petition which was registered as W. P. No. 334/2007 which was finally heard and decided by this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 24-1-2007 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed as under : – “The name of Baijnath and Basudev are brought on record they will represent Shrilal for the purpose of that appeal only. As regard their right on the basis of the Will are concerned the parties are free to take separate proceedings and their right cannot be decided in the appeal which is filed against the order granting certificate in favour of Shrilal.” 4. As regard their right on the basis of the Will are concerned the parties are free to take separate proceedings and their right cannot be decided in the appeal which is filed against the order granting certificate in favour of Shrilal.” 4. The Appellate Court after hearing the matter has remanded the matter back to the trial Court vide order dated 10-12-2013 and during the pendency of the case before the learned trial Court Baijnath died on 14-3-2016 and Basudev died on 16-3-2017. The application was filed by Radharaman and others for substitution of their names as legal representatives of late Baijnath and Smt. Lajja Devi and others filed applications for substitution of their names in place of late Basudev. The learned trial Court has allowed both the applications vide the impugned order dated 12-5-2018. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the strength of Order 22, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code which reads as under : – 3. Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs 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.” 5. He has further relied upon the definition of legal representatives under section 2(11) of Civil Procedure Code which reads as under : – 2(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”. 6. 6. It is further submitted that by virtue of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the previous round of litigation wherein only a limited relief was granted to contest the appeal only. The application could not have been allowed by the learned trial Court as no right or title has accrued in favour of Baijnath and Basudev on the basis of the alleged Will in question. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in allowing the application and the order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the W. P. No. 334/2007. He has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the learned trial Court and has argued that in the appeal Baijnath and Basudev were party to the proceedings. He has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure P/4 which is the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 10-12-2013 wherein it is seen that they were party to the appeal. It is further contended that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the Appellate Court has remanded the matter to the learned trial Court and during the pendency of the case before the trial Court both Baijnath and Basudev have passed away, therefore, their legal representatives were required to be brought on record to contest the case. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W. P. No. 334/2007 and has argued that the petitioner cannot take the advantage of technicalities as Baijnath and Basudev were directed to be brought on record as legal representatives of Shrilal in the appeal by this Hon’ble Court itself. The question of title on the basis of the Will with respect to late Shrilal is yet to be ascertained by the learned trial Court for which the case has to be contested by the legal representatives of Shrilal and if late Shrilal succeeds in showing his title to the property on the basis of the Will, then being the legal heirs of Baijnath and Basudev they are having right and title in the property of Shrilal. Under these circumstances, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From the perusal of the record it is seen that in the writ petition filed before this Hon’ble Court being W. P. No. 334/2007 the coordinate Bench has directed as under : – “After perusing the impugned order I find that the appeal which is pending before the appellate Court in respect to the succession certificate issued in favour of the Shrilal in respect of property of deceased Vidyaram and the names of Baijnath and Vasudeo are brought on record in place of Shrilal. Once the name of the respondents are brought on record they will represent Shrilal for the purpose of that appeal only. As regards their right on the basis of Will are concerned the parties are free to take separate proceedings and their rights cannot be decided in the appeal which is filed against the order granting succession certificate in favour of the Shrilal. In the present appeal the only question which required to be determined by the appellant Court was that whether succession certificate is rightly issued or not. With this direction petition stands disposed of.” 10. On the basis of the aforesaid observations made by the coordinate Bench, Baijnath and Basudev were incorporated as legal heirs of Shrilal in the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1A/2013 and the appellate Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court for decision on merits. During pendency of the case before the trial Court both Baijnath and Basudev have passed away and application for bringing legal representatives was filed. The application was allowed by the learned trial Court as the legal representatives were required to be brought on record to contest the matter. It is a case wherein right and title of Shrilal is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court and in case Shrilal is declared to be having right and title in the property in question in the capacity of legal representatives of late Vidyaram then certainly the legal representatives i.e. Baijnath and Basudev and after the death their legal representatives will be having right and title in the property in dispute. It is not a case where the right and title of legal representatives of Baijnath and Basudev is to be determined rather the learned trial Court has yet to examine the right and title of Shrilal in the disputed property. The allowing of the application of legal representatives does not create any right in favour of the legal representatives. It is only for the purpose of contesting the suit before the trial Court. Therefore, finding no illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court. The order is hereby affirmed. Even otherwise in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India there is a limited scope of interference as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 . Thus, this Court refrains from disturbing the impugned order. 11. The petition sans merits is accordingly dismissed.