ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13.02.2020 whereby, the application filed by the applicant under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC seeking his substitution in place of the deceased-plaintiff No.1 Bhagwan Sahay claiming himself to be his sole legal representative, has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that late Mr. Bhagwan Sahay and Shri Harinarayan filed a civil suit for declaration, cancelation of sale deed, permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents-defendants. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.1 Bhagwan Sahay died on 28.09.2019. The applicant Naresh Mahawar claiming himself to be legal representative of the deceased-Bhagwan Sahay, filed an application seeking his substitution in place of deceased-plaintiff No.1, which has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide order impugned herein. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that while rejecting the application, learned trial Court erred in ignoring the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC as well as of Section 2(11) of CPC. He submitted that from the contents of the application filed by him, it was apparent that he alone represented estate of the deceased and was therefore, entitled to be substituted in his place. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 5. This Court finds that as per the order dated 13.02.2020, the applicant has claimed himself to be adopted son of late Mr. Bhagwan Sahay; but, when asked pointedly by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners denied that he ever claimed himself to be adopted son of late Mr. Bhagwan Sahay. 5. This Court finds that as per the order dated 13.02.2020, the applicant has claimed himself to be adopted son of late Mr. Bhagwan Sahay; but, when asked pointedly by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners denied that he ever claimed himself to be adopted son of late Mr. Bhagwan Sahay. However, the petitioner has made following averments in his application seeking substitution: ^^Hkxokulgk; ÁkFkhZ gfjukjk;.k ds rhljs iq= ujs’k ds ikl gh jgrk Fkk o mlds chekj gksus ij ujs’k us gh mldk bZykt djk;kA Hkxokulgk; djhc 2&3 efgus ls VkbZQkbZM ls ihfM+r gks x;k Fkk o gkyr fnu cfnu fxjrh tk jgh Fkh] blfy, Hkxokulgk; dks vglkl gks x;k fd mlds cpus dh dksbZ lEHkkouk ugha jgh] rks ejus ls nks rhu fnu igys ls gh og ;g dgus yx x;k Fkk fd esjk cpuk lEHko ugha gS o esjk lkjk bZykt nokbZ vkfn ujs’k us gh djk;k gS o eSa ujs’k ds ikl gh jgrk gw¡ o ujs’k us gh esjk lkjk [kpkZ mBk;k gSA nks rhu efgus oS| dk bZykt djk fy;k] ysfdu dksbZ Qk;nk ugha gqvk] blfy, eSa ej tkma rks esjs ejus ds ckn esjs lkjs fØ;k deZ] xaxk Luku] ckjgaok] uqDrk] lHkh ujs’k gh djk;sxk o ujs’k ds gh esjh ixM+h ca/kkbZ tkos o ujs’k gh esjs fgLls dk ekfyd cusxkA mldh bPNk vuqlkj o ikap iVsyksa ds dgs vuqlkj o Hkxokulgk; dh bPNk vuqlkj ujs’k us gh e`rd Hkxokulgk; ds lkjs fØ;k deZ] xaxk Luku o ckjgoka uqdrk vkfn deZ djk;s mldk lkjk [kpkZ ujs’k us gh fd;k gS o ikap vknfe;ksa us Hkxokulgk; dh ixM+h Hkh ujs’k ds gh ca/kkbZ gSA bl Ádkj oknh Hkxokulgk; e`rd dk okfjl fi-eq- ekfyd ujs’k egkoj iq= gfjukjk;.k egkoj gh cuk gS o Hkxokulgk; dh ,LVsV lEifRr dks ujs’k gh lEHkky jgk gS] blfy, e`rd Hkxokulgk; ds LFkku ij mldk dk;e eqdke ujs’k egkoj dks oknh ds LFkku ij i{kdkj cuk;k tkuk vko’;d gS o dk;e eqdke cuk;k tkuk vko’;d gSA** 6. The tenor of the aforesaid contents of the application for impleadment leaves no room for doubt that the applicant claimed himself to be adopted son of late Mr. Bhagwan Sahay; whereas, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel denied the applicant to be adopted son of the deceased. The applicant in this writ petition also had made contradictory averments in this regard. Bhagwan Sahay; whereas, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel denied the applicant to be adopted son of the deceased. The applicant in this writ petition also had made contradictory averments in this regard. In para No.4, it is claimed that the deceased-Bhagwan Sahay adopted the applicant as his son; whereas, in ground E, he submitted that he is younger brother of the deceased. This Court finds no error in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court rejecting his claim based on adoption. Further perusal of the contents of the application also reflects that it is not the applicant alone who could claim himself to be sole legal representative inasmuch as he is third son of plaintiff- Harinarayan meaning thereby, he has other siblings also and in these circumstances, it does not lie in his mouth to claim himself to be sole legal representative of the deceased-Bhagwan Sahay in his capacity as younger brother. 7. The learned trial Court has also, while rejecting his application, taken cognizance of the fact that beside applicant, there are other legal heirs of deceased-Bhagwan Sahay also in the same class in which the applicant stands. Therefore, I find no illegality or perversity in the order dated 13.02.2020 rejecting his application warranting interference of this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Stay application filed along with the writ petition also stands disposed of.