JUDGMENT : Harkesh Manuja, J. By the way of present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to an order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the First Appellate Court’), whereby application filed at the instance of applicant-Karamvir Singh seeking his impleadment as legal representative of deceased Harbans Singh/plaintiff stands allowed. 2. In the given facts, respondent/plaintiff-Harbans Singh filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment against petitioner qua the property i.e. house no. 1683 (Ground & First Floor), situated at Phase 3B2, SAS Nagar (Mohali). The suit was decreed in a favour of Harbans Singh/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Mohali. Aggrieved thereof, petitioner/defendant filed a Civil Appeal No.132 of 2016. During its pendency, Harbans Singh/plaintiff expired on 12.04.2021 followed by an application dated 12.01.2022 filed on behalf of applicant-Karamvir Singh seeking his impleadment as legal representative of the deceased. The said application was through opposed at the instance of petitioner, however, the same came allowed vide dated 30.03.2022 by the Addl. District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali). 3. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing revision petition bearing CR No. 1282 of 2023, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 03.10.2023 and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Court for adjudication upon the application filed on the behalf of the applicant-Karamvir Singh seeking his impleadment as legal representative of deceased Harbans Singh with the following observation :- “10. Considering the submissions addressed by both the sides and taking note of the judgment reported in Jaladi Suguna (dead) through L.Rs case (supra), I hereby deem it appropriate to set aside the order dated 30.03.2022 by directing the respondent herein to file his application afresh under order XXII Rules 5 CPC and accordingly, the petitioner herein would also be given a chance/effective opportunity to file his detailed reply. Thereupon, the same would be decided a fresh by the learned Appellate Court after taking note of the provisions of law under order XXII Rule 5 CPC and the judgement referred herein above. 11. Ordered accordingly. The said exercised would be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, both the petitions stand disposed of” 4. 11. Ordered accordingly. The said exercised would be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, both the petitions stand disposed of” 4. In pursuance thereof, fresh application dated 16.10.2023 seeking his impleadment as legal representative of deceased of Harbans Singh claiming himself to be the son, was filed by the applicant-Karamvir Singh and reply to the said application was also filed by the petitioner. In view of such situation, the First Appellate Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether Sh. Harbans Singh has expired on 12.04.2021? OPA 2. Whether Karamvir Singh is the only adopted son of deceased Harbans Singh and therefore, he is his legal representative? OPA 3. Whether Karamvir Singh is the legal representative of the deceased Harbans Singh on the basis of Will dated 14.02.2011? OPA” 4. Relief” 5. Both the sides were afforded opportunity to lead their respective evidence in relation to the aforesaid issues. Finally vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2024,the First Appellate Court allowed the application filed on the behalf of Karamvir Singh while impleading him as legal representative of deceased Harbans Singh for the purposes of pursuing the Civil Appeal No.132 of 2016. Aggrieved thereof, the present revision petition has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the petition submitted that the plea regarding adoption of Karamvir Singh by deceased Harbans Singh was reject by the First Appellate Court, however, the same was nowhere challenged by the applicant-Karamvir Singh and, thus, the only cause of action on the basis of the which the applicant-Karamvir Singh claimed himself to be legal representative of deceased remains the Will dated 14.02.2011 allegedly executed by deceased Harbans Singh in his favour. In this regard, learned counsel submits that the through the Will dated 14.02.2011 been proved on record in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the India Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, yet the same being surrounded by suspicious circumstances was liable to discarded on account of following grounds:- (a) Through the wife of testator Harbans Singh was alive at the time of execution of Will dated 14.02.2011, yet in the testamentary document, no mention about it or arrangements were made qua her rights. (b) The Will in question was through executed on 14.02.2011, however as per the deposition made by the attesting witness AW5-Davinder Pal Singh, he was instructed by the testator not to disclose the factum of its execution to the beneficiary, whereas no such covenant finds mentioned in the testamentary document. (c) The language used in the Will about the relationship of Karamvir Singh-beneficiary with the testator was not happily worded. The Will being vague, no details of properties owned or inherited by the testator mentioned therein. Even no reasons were mentioned in the Will for discarding the other natural legal heirs by the testator, especially his sisters, brothers and their wards. 6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the proviso to Sub-Rule of Order 22 CPC to submit that the First Appellate Court committed procedural irregularity in the absence of sending the matter to the Trial Court for the purposes of recording of evidence on the issue of applicant-karamvir Singh being the legal representative of deceased Harbans Singh. Learned counsel also submitted that once the Appellate Court was of the view that the issue regarding impleadment of applicant-Karamvir Singh as legal representative of deceased Harbans Singh required evidence, the First Appellate Court was enjoined to send the matter to the Trial Court for the purposes of recording on the evidence said issues, rather than taking upon itself to records the same and adjudicate it. In this regard learned counsel refers to M/s Kanhiya Singh Santokh Singh & Ors. vs. Kartar Singh, 2009(5) SCC 155 . He also refers to Karedia Parthasradhi Vs. Gangula Ramanamma (D) Through L.Rs. and other, 2015(4) SCC (civil) 515, Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (D) Thr L.Rs. vs. Shayam Lal Chauhan & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.5569-5570 of 2004 @ SLP(C) Nos. 1717-1718 of 2020 decided on 30.04.2024; Jaladi Suguna (Dead) through L.Rs vs. Satya Sai Central Trust and Ors., Civil Appeal no.3375 of 2008 (Arising out SLP(C) no.7818 of 2007) decided on 05.05.2008; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. P. Kesavan and another, 2004(9) SCC 772 and Suresh Nanda Vs. C.B.I., 2008(3) SCC 674 . 6.2 Learned counsel further submitted that once the factum of deceased Harbans Singh having other brothers and sister was brought on record through deposition of AW-6 Gurdial Singh, it was essential for the First Appellate Court to have brought all of them on record, may be so as preforma defendants. C.B.I., 2008(3) SCC 674 . 6.2 Learned counsel further submitted that once the factum of deceased Harbans Singh having other brothers and sister was brought on record through deposition of AW-6 Gurdial Singh, it was essential for the First Appellate Court to have brought all of them on record, may be so as preforma defendants. In this regard, learned counsel refers to decision passed by this Court in case of Shri Dhramvir vs. Mela Ram, 1990 PLJ 331. No other argument was addressed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent submits that in the application filed under Order 22 Rules 5 CPC, it was specifically pleaded by the applicant –karamvir Singh that he happens to be the son of deceased Harbans Singh. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following documents, which were even proved on record through various witnesses:- Witness No. Name & Designation of Witness Document proved Exhibit No. AW-2 Sandeep Raini Deputy      Manager, Punjab Nation   Bank Proved Account                 Statement of Joint               Account of Harbans Singh and Karamvir Singh Ex.AW-2/1  Ex.AW-2/2 Aw-3 Raj Kumar, Inspector, Food   and Civil Supplies Proved Ration card of showing Karamvir Singh     son of Harbans Singh Ex.AW-3/1 Mark-6/1 AW-4 Sarabit Singh Registration  Clerk Proved Original Transfer     Deed in favour of Karamvir Singh and Registered Will in favour of Karamvir Singh Ex.PW-4/2 AW-5 Davinder Pal Singh Attesting   Witness of Will Proved Registered will in     favour of Karamvir Singh Ex.AW-4/2 AW-6 Gurdial Singh Sarpanchy of  Gram Panchayat, Gondpur Proved Karamvir Singh  was about 4 days when  Gurmeet Kaur and Harbans  Singh brought him Home AW-7 Jarnail Singh Attesting      Witness of Transfer Deed Proved Transfer deed in    favour of Karamvir Singh Ex.AW-4/1 AW-8 Harjnder Singh (Biologinal    Father of Karamvir Singh) Proved Harbans Singh   adopted Karamvir Singh   since he was not having  a child. Harbans Singh  told him not to disclose  about adoption AW-9 Ms. Meenakshi Sharma,        from the office of Electoral   District Commission Proved Voter Card and            Voter List showing Karamvir   Singh son of Harbans Singh Ex.AW-9/1 AW-10 Anil Kumar Lamba, Jr. Assistant, Office of CBSE Proved 10th Certificate          and  12th Certificate               showing  Karamvir Singh   son of  Harbans Singh Ex.AW-10/1  Ex.AW-10/2 AW-11 Garish Sharma, Civil Regis tration Assistant Office,          Civil Surgeon Hosiarpur Proved Birth Certificate      showing Karamvir Singh  son of Harbans Singh Ex.AW-11/1 AW-12 B.P. Yadav, JCO-cum-    Clerk, New Delhi Proved Service record                of Lt. Assistant, Office of CBSE Proved 10th Certificate          and  12th Certificate               showing  Karamvir Singh   son of  Harbans Singh Ex.AW-10/1  Ex.AW-10/2 AW-11 Garish Sharma, Civil Regis tration Assistant Office,          Civil Surgeon Hosiarpur Proved Birth Certificate      showing Karamvir Singh  son of Harbans Singh Ex.AW-11/1 AW-12 B.P. Yadav, JCO-cum-    Clerk, New Delhi Proved Service record                of Lt. col Harbans Singh           and letter dated                          06.04.2017 showing                   Karamvir Singh son of       Harbans Singh Ex.AW-12/1 Ex.AW-12/2 Ex.AW-12/7 Ex.AW-12/8 7.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the matter was being agitated by the petitioner as if the rights, title or interest in the property in question were to be adjudicated upon and conferred upon the parties to the present lis, whereas infact the application merely pertained to the determination of legal representative of the deceased Harbans Singh and not his legal heirs. In this regards, he placed reliance upon the definition of legal representative as laid down under Section 2 Sub-Section 11 of CPC, which reads as under:- “A legal representative is a person in law who represents the estate of the deceased and include any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or sued in a representative character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.” Further, in the aforesaid context leaned counsel placed reliance upon decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yashpal Jain vs. Sushila Devi and others, 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 5652. 7.2 Learned counsel also referred to Para No.4 of the plaint filed by Harbans Singh seeking possession by way of ejectment against petitioner herein, where one of the ground seeking ejectment was the bona fide need of Karamvir Singh while referring him to be the son of deceased/landlord-Harbans Singh. The said the paragraph from the plaint is extracted hereunder:- “4. That the plaintiff wants to settle and to start his business S.A.S. Nagar Mohali. The son of the plaintiff namely Karamvir Singh also wants to get higher education at S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The said the paragraph from the plaint is extracted hereunder:- “4. That the plaintiff wants to settle and to start his business S.A.S. Nagar Mohali. The son of the plaintiff namely Karamvir Singh also wants to get higher education at S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The house in suit is required the plaintiff and his family for their personal use and occupation.” 7.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the primary reason for rejecting the plea of adoption as set up by the applicant-Karamvir Singh was that no specific pleadings in this regard were made in the application filed under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, besides the absence of proof of statutory requirements under Section 6 to 11 of the Hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956. It was, thus, submitted that even if the plea of adoption was not established on record, there was ample evidence to show that the applicant Karamvir Singh remained in custody of deceased Harbans Singh since his childhood and was throughout acknowledged being his son, may it be his educational records the voter identity card or even the other statutory documents including PAN card, ration card, passport etc. as well as the service record pertaining to deceased Harbans Singh. 7.4 As regards the plea of suspicious circumstances allegedly surrounding the Will in question, learned counsel submitted that the same was dealt with by the First Appellate Court in extensive, finding none to be suspicious. It was also submitted that the adjudication/determination of applicant-Karamvir Singh as legal representative of deceased Harbans Singh was based on proper appreciation of detailed documentary evidence available on record including the registered Will dated 14.02.2011 and, thus, the same calls for no interference. 7.5 Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the reliance upon proviso to Rule 5 of Order 22 CPC by the other side, was wholly misplaced as the nowhere mandates the First Appellate Court in all possible situations to send the matter back to the Trial Court for the purposes of recording of evidence on the issue of impleadment of an individual being legal representative/legal heir of deceased litigant. He also points out that no such objection was even raised by the petitioner before the First Appellate Court upon framing of issues and even thereafter while the evidence was being led in pursuance thereof. He also points out that no such objection was even raised by the petitioner before the First Appellate Court upon framing of issues and even thereafter while the evidence was being led in pursuance thereof. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed upon Madan Mohan Singh vs. Ved Prakash Arya, 2021(2) R.C.R. (civil) 304; Net Ram vs. Virender Kumar, 2013 (26) R.C.R. (Civil) 943; Harbans Lal and others vs. Devinder Kumar and others, 2010(1) R.C.R. (civil) 626; Neeraj Kumar and another vs. Naresh Kumar RSA no.928 of 2010 decided on 02.03.2010; Anguri Devi vs. Jasmer Singh, 2006(4) R.C.R. (civil) 707; Laxmidas Morarji(Dead) by LRs. vs. Miss Behrose Darab Madan, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 347; Yashpal Jain Vs. Sushila Devi & others, 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 5652 and Jai Parkash vs. Ashok Kumar Sawhney, 2020(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 206. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Summarily, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two arguments Firstly, although the Will was proved in accordance with law, but it was surrounded the suspicious circumstances. Secondly, in view of Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, the First Appellate Court should have remanded the proceedings back to the back to the Trial Court for recording of the evidence. Both these contentions are dealt with in the followings Paras in details. Discussion regarding suspicious circumstance around the Will 10. In the humble opinion of this Court, no suspicion can be found in the circumstances tried to be projected by the petitioner. Voluminous documentary evidence was brought on record b the applicant–Karamvir Singh, which was proved in accordance with law as well. Additionally, oral evidence of other witness leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that for all practical purposes, there existed a relationship of son and father between applicant-Karamvir Singh and Harabns Singh. Even though on technical grounds, Karamvir Simgh could not be held as the adopted son of Harbans Singh, but the First Appellate Court rightly held that since Karamvir Singh was brought up from the age 3-4 days by Harbans Singh and his wife Gurmeet Kaur, they treated him like his son and accordingly his name was also recorded as their son in all documentary evidence starting from the birth certificate till ECHS Card of the applicant. Still further, besides having examined AW-5 Davinderpal Singh, Who happened to be one of the attesting witness to the Will dated 14.02.2011, AW4-Sarabjit Singh, Clerk from the office of Sub-Registrar, was also examined, who not only verified the execution of Will date 14.02.2011 in favour of applicant-Karamvir Singh, but also proved record pertaining to transfer deed executed by Harbans Singh is respect of 99 Kanals 19 marlas of agricultural land in favour of applicant-Karamvir Singh son of Harbans Singh vide transfer deed document 2020-2021/160/1/649 dated 17.11.220. This comprehensively established the facts that Harbans Singh started transferring his property in favour of applicant-Karamvir Singh out of love and affection even when he was alive. 11. in the view of these attending circumstances, objections raised by learned for the petitioner to show that will dated 14.02.2011 was surrounded by the suspicious circumstances are frivolous and imaginary and are discussed in more detail in subsequent paras. But before adverting to merits of these objection/ circumstances, it is necessary to point out to point out that these objections are also liable to be discarded on multiple counts apart from there being any substance in these objections. In the humble opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has no locus to raise these objections. Admittedly, he happened to be a tenant in the disputed property and it was also admitted by him that the tenancy agreement brought on record by him was not signed by the landlord-Harbans Singh. While a person having some legal interest in the property can be held to be entitled to raise such objection, but petitioner, who at best has possession as a tenant only (through it has been denied by the respondent), cannot be allowed to raise all these objections. In the context, this Court is in complete concurrence with the reliance placed upon by learned First Appellate Court in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Dashrath Rao Kate v. Brij Mohan Srivastava,” reported as (2010) 1 SCC 277 . Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced here under:- “19. All this is apart from the fact that the tenant in this case could not have challenged the Will at all. He was an utter outsider and had no interest in the property as owner. Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced here under:- “19. All this is apart from the fact that the tenant in this case could not have challenged the Will at all. He was an utter outsider and had no interest in the property as owner. Indeed, from the pleading and evidence it is clear that tenant-respondent has not even ventured to claim any rival intreset against the application/plaintiff.” 12. In this context, argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant-Karamvir Singh also gains significance that application in concern was only to decide the legal representative(s) of Harbans Singh in the present decide the legal heir(s). This Court finds substance in this submission and accordingly, the obligation to prove the fact that applicant-Karamvir Singh can represent the estate of Harbans Singh against a stranger third party is prima facie only. In this context, it is appropriate to notice the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Yashpal Jain’s case (supra) while interpreting the meaning of term “legal representative” differentiating it from “legal heir”, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as hereunder: “3. At this juncture, we would like to point out that careful perusal of the application and the orders passed by the Courts below would indicate that the parties and the Courts below seem to have proceeded on the footing that they were to adjudicate the rights of a legal heir which if seen in the light of expression used in the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is impermissible, as it is not referable to ‘legal heir’ but ‘legal representative as defined under Section 2(11) which reads: “Legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with 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. On the death of a party to the suit it is the legal representative who is/are entitled to prosecute the proceedings and, in law, represent the estate of the deceased. The legal representative who is brought on record not only includes a legatee under a Will but also an intermeddler of the property who would be entitled to sue and to be sued and/or continue to prosecute the proceedings. The legal representative who is brought on record not only includes a legatee under a Will but also an intermeddler of the property who would be entitled to sue and to be sued and/or continue to prosecute the proceedings. This vital aspect seems to have been lost sight of the Courts below conveniently.” In such circumstances, Will dated 14.02.2011 being a registered testament; even proved as per the requirement of law in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a third party which is stranger to the estate of Harbans Singh, cannot be allowed to raise any objection that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. 13. Apart from all the documentary evidence brought on record by the applicant-Karamvir Singh, his status as legal representative in the present case is further fortified from the content of the civil suit filed by Harbans Singh. While seeking ejection of the petitioner, apart from mentioning that plaintiff wants to settle and to start his business at SAS nagar Mohali, it was also specified by him that the son of the plaintiff namely Karamvir Singh also wants to get higher education at SAS Nagar (Mohali), and accordingly, the house which is subject matter of suit was required for the plaintiff and his family for their personal use and occupation. Once the basis of the suit was personal and bona fide need of the Harbans Singh and applicant-Karamvir Singh; in the absence of Harbans Singh, there remains no doubt that the applicant-Karamvir Singh is the only legal representative to pursue the appeal. 14. Now let us advert to each of these of objection, which are discussed individually in the following sub-paras:- (i) With regard to the first objection, that the testator Harbans Singh made no arrangement for his wife, who was alive at the time of execution of Will dated 14.02.2011, it can be noted there is specific mention in the Will regarding the future arrangements of his wife it has been that his pension would suffice for her. Though nothing can be said about the uncertainty of the life age/health of wife of Harbans Singh must have been equivalent to his age/health and in view of the prevailing circumstances of the case, the purpose of Will was to ensure the rights of applicant-Karamvir Singh. Though nothing can be said about the uncertainty of the life age/health of wife of Harbans Singh must have been equivalent to his age/health and in view of the prevailing circumstances of the case, the purpose of Will was to ensure the rights of applicant-Karamvir Singh. Therefore, this circumstance does not cause any dent in the Will. (ii) Second objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that AW5-Davinder Pal Singh made a statement that he was instructed by the testator no to disclose the factum of execution of Will in question to the beneficiary, whereas no such covenant finds mentioned in the testamentary document. Harbans Singh Have made a request to AW-5 not to disclose the execution of this will and its content so that the fact regarding Harbans Singh not being the actual father of applicant-Karamvir Singh comes to his knowledge during the lifetime of Harbans Singh. It is required to be noted that in the peculiar circumstance of the case, this witness was also the biological father of the applicant and was also in close relationship with Harbans Singh being his brother-in-law. He might have made this innocuous request on the account of their closeness and no fault can be found with the Will, merely because such condition was not recorded therein (iii) Objection regarding details of properties not being mentioned in the Will is not sustainable, as respondent considered applicant-Karamvir Singh his only heir and intended to devolve all his properties with him only. There is also no substance in the another objection raised that no reason has been specified while discarding the rights of other legal heirs. Harbans Singh not only brought up the applicant-Karamvir Singh, When he was 3-4 days old only, he also considered him as his son and in all probability, this will was prepared to protect his right from other class-ii heirs, which is quite natural and on this account as well, this cannot be taken as suspicious circumstance For this reason, judgment in Shri Dharmvir’s case (supra) cannot be made applicable in the present case, particularly taking into consideration the fact that no such objection as such was raised by petitioner before the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, the circumstances projected by learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the execution of Will is suspicious, are without any substance and liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the circumstances projected by learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the execution of Will is suspicious, are without any substance and liable to be rejected. Discussion Regarding Compliance of Order 22, Rule 5 CPC. 15. This Court also does not find any merit in the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the First Appellate Court committed procedural irregularity by not referring the matter to the Trial Court for the purpose of recording evidence on the issue of applicant-Karamvir Singh being legal representative of deceased Harbans Singh. To examine this contention it is necessary to peruse the Order 22 Rules 5 CPC, Which is reproduced hereunder:- “Rule 5: Determination of question as to legal representative--Where a question arises 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 arise before an Appellate Court, the Court may before determining the question, direct any subordinate Court to try the question and to return the records together with evidence, if the any recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefore and the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question.” 15.1 A perusal of the second part of the provision reveals that, the Appellate Court “may” direct the matter to subordinate Court for the purpose of conducting trial on the question of determining legal representative. The language of the provision in view of the word used “may”, clearly reveals that the Appellate Court “may” either directed the subordinate Court to try this question or may use its direction to conduct the trial itself. The reliance placed upon the judgement of Kanhiya’s case (supra) is misplaced for multiple reasons. Firstly, in Kanhiya’s case (supra), neither the trial was conducted nor the evidence recorded by any subordinate Court on this aspect. While in present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that evidences have not been recorded by the First Appellate Court, rather his only grievance is that the First Appellate Court should have directed the Trial Court to record the evidence/conduct the trial. While in present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that evidences have not been recorded by the First Appellate Court, rather his only grievance is that the First Appellate Court should have directed the Trial Court to record the evidence/conduct the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out anything concrete to show that any prejudice at all has been caused to the petitioner on account of the evidence being recorded by the First Appellate Court. 15.2 Secondly, the mandatory character of the provision of Order 22 Rule 5 CPC as observed in Kanhiya’s case (supra), is only to extent that if question of legal representative arises before the Appellate Court a trial is required to be conducted on this aspect and the Appellate Court should determine this question after recording evidence. The mandatory character of the provision does not come from the fact that matter for this purpose should be necessarily remanded to the Trial Court. This view is also supported from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vedvyasanand’s case (supra), wherein it was held that the Appellate Court is not bound by the findings given by the Trial Court after recording evidence. Relevant Para from this judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “17. Proviso to Rule 5 does not say that the Appellate Court can direct the subordinate Court to decide the question as to who would be the legal representative. It is only provides that the Appellate Court can direct the subordinate Court to try the question and return the records to Appellate Court, along with the evidence and the subordinate Court has then to send a report in the form of a reasoned opinion based on evidence recorded, upon which the final decision has to be made ultimately by the Appellate Court after considering all relevant material. While dealing with the report sent by the subordinate Court under Order 22 Rules 5 of CPC, the Appellate Court may consider the findings of the subordinate Court and then give its reasons before reaching any conclusion. The words ‘the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question’ used in the proviso to Rule 5 gives discretion to the Appellate Court to make its own separate opinion notwithstanding the opinion of the subordinate Court. The words ‘the Appellate Court may take the same into consideration in determining the question’ used in the proviso to Rule 5 gives discretion to the Appellate Court to make its own separate opinion notwithstanding the opinion of the subordinate Court. The proviso cannot be construed to be delegation of the powers of the Appellate Court to substitute the deceased party but is merely to assist it in ultimately deciding the issue of substitution Thus, the Appellate Court ‘may’ take into consideration the material referred by the subordinate Court under Rule 5 of Order 22, CPC along with the objections, if any against the reported while deciding on the substitution of the appellant. In the view of this judgement, once the Appellate Court is not bound by the findings of Trial Court and it can very well make its own opinion in the basis of evidences recorded, then it is immaterial whether the evidence are recorded by the Trial Court or by the First Appellate Court. Conclusion 16. In the view of aforesaid discussion, other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that eventuality, it cannot be stated that this procedural irregularity has affected the merits of the case in any manner and, therefore, this contention is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, in view of discussion made in the foregoing paras, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.