ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 30.6.2022, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.2, Shimla in case No. 90037 of 2010, whereby the application of the respondent herein filed under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased petitioner/landlord was allowed. 2. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that Master Krish Bindra could not have been brought on record to substitute the deceased petitioner by way of application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, as he did not qualify to be the legal heir of original petitioner/landlord. It is contended that the deceased petitioner/landlord Sh. Godwin Bindra did not have any biological son. In case Master Krish Bindra was his adopted son, the fact had to be supported by a document, evidencing such adoption. As per petitioner, the right to sue could survive in favour of the legal heirs entitled to inherit the estate of deceased petitioner/landlord. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case file carefully. 4. Perusal of application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC filed before the learned trial Court reveals that Smt. Meena and Master Krish Bindra were sought to be brought on record to substitute the deceased petitioner/landlord after his death. The application was resisted on behalf of the petitioner herein on the ground that there was no legal and valid adoption by virtue of which, Master Krish Bindra could be said to be the son and legal heir of Sh. Godwin Bindra. It is also submitted that the right to sue had not survived in favour of Master Krish Bindra. Therefore, he could not be allowed to be brought on record as one of the petitioners. 5. Learned trial Court having taken note of all relevant facts rejected the contention of respondent herein and allowed the application vide impugned order. It was also held that the application was within limitation and was accompanied by a legal heir certificate, issued by the competent authority, in which Master Krish Bindra was shown as one of the legal heirs of Sh. Godwin Bindra. It was also held that the application was within limitation and was accompanied by a legal heir certificate, issued by the competent authority, in which Master Krish Bindra was shown as one of the legal heirs of Sh. Godwin Bindra. Learned trial Court held that while deciding application under Order 22 Rule 3, the heirship of the person sought to be brought on record as legal representative was not required to be determined. 6. No fault can be found with impugned order. For the purpose of Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC, the relevant and necessary determinative factor is that the person sought to be brought on record to substitute deceased party should be his legal representative. The term legal representative has been defined in Section 2 (11) of the CPC, as under: - “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” 7. Thus, the term legal representative is much wider in scope than the legal heir, especially in the context of provisions of Order 22 of the CPC. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph 10 of the judgment, passed by High Court of Judicature of Madras on 17.6.2022 in Writ Petition No. 25247 of 2021 along with connected matters, to assert that the legal heir certificate issued by Tehsildar was not legal document to ascertain heirship. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected for the reasons that legal heirship is not to be decided while adjudicating an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC. The Court is to be satisfied that the person sought to be brought on record to substitute deceased party is his legal representative. Legal representative includes even a person entitled to intermeddle with the estate of the deceased. In such circumstances, there was sufficient prima facie material before learned trial Court in the shape of legal heir certificate, issued by the competent authority to infer that Master Krish Bindra was legal representative of deceased petitioner/landlord. 9. Legal representative includes even a person entitled to intermeddle with the estate of the deceased. In such circumstances, there was sufficient prima facie material before learned trial Court in the shape of legal heir certificate, issued by the competent authority to infer that Master Krish Bindra was legal representative of deceased petitioner/landlord. 9. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.