IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 89 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.6.2008 ________________________________________________________________ Mohan Lal … Petitioner Versus Bala Ram & ors. … Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral ). This petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Solan whereby he has allowed the application under Order 22 rule 3 CPC filed by the plaintiffs for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff No.2 Roop Singh alias Roop Ram. Brief facts of the case are that Bala Ram, Roop Singh alias Roop Ram, Smt. Asha Devi and Smt. Neelam filed a suit for possession of the suit land by redemption of mortgage. Defendant Mohan Lal contested the suit. During the - 2 - proceedings Roop Singh alias Roop Ram died. An application under Order 22 rule 3 CPC was filed in which it was stated that Roop Singh had executed a Will in favour of Joginder Singh, Mohinder Singh, Sanjay, Neeraj and Amit. This application was contested and according to the defendant, Roop Singh had another widow Smt. Uma Mehta and she had three daughters from Smt. Uma Mehta, namely, Sunita, Krishana and Kavita. It was prayed that all the heirs of Roop Singh may be brought on record. The learned trial Court on the basis of a Will has only brought on record the legal representatives, namely, Joginder Singh, Mohinder Sigh, Sanjay Neeraj and Amit. Aggrieved against the order of the learned trial Judge, the defendant filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. The estate of Roop Singh is adequately represented by the legal heirs who have been brought on record on the basis of a Will. No doubt, the trial Court should have avoided making any observation which held the Will to be valid. Such observations should not have been made in the absence of the other legal representatives who may be adversely affected by the Will. However, once the estate of the deceased is represented, the purpose of Order 22 is - 3 - served. It is not necessary to bring on record each and every legal heir. In case any of the other legal heirs of deceased Roop Singh wants to challenge the Will, they can do so in an appropriate proceedings and the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the learned trial Court will not come in their way. The defendant in any event has no reason to espouse the cause of other legal heirs. Therefore, the petitioner- defendant has no right to challenge the impugned order. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. June 19, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.