1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH:NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.26/2011 GHANSHAMDAS GOPALDAS MOHTA VERSUS LALITKUAMR PURUSHOTTAMDAS MOHTA & ORS =================================================== CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE:11.1.2011. ORAL ORDER Heard Shri Sarda for the petitioner. The respondent no.1 instituted a suit for partition and separate possession against the petitioner and against other respondents. During the pendency of the suit Smt. Gangabai Mohta – defendant no.1 expired on 21.5.2010. The plaintiff, Lalitkumar /respondent no.1 filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased Gangabai Mohta / defendant no.1 on record. At the same time, the petitioner who claimed to be the legal heir of deceased Gangabai Mohta on the basis of a will dated 19.6.1998 also filed an application under order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing his name as legal representative of deceased defendant no.1 on record. The trial court considered both these applications and permitted the respondent no.1 Lalitkumar to bring the legal heirs of Smt. Gangabai Mohta on record. The trial court by the impugned order dated 2 12.10.2010, also allowed the petitioner to substitute his name in place of deceased Gangabai Mohta, along with other legal heirs of Gangabai Mohta. The order dated 12.10.2010, is challenged on the ground that the trial court ought to have permitted the substitution of the name of the petitioner only and the other legal heirs of Gangabai Mohta ought not have been brought on record. The trial court did not commit any error whatsoever in passing the impugned order dated 12.10.2010 and permitting the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of Gangabai Mohta on record and also permitting the petitioner to substitute his name in place of deceased defendant no.1 along with other legal heirs of deceased defendant no.1. It is not in dispute that an adjudication as to who is the legal heir of the deceased Gangabai is pending before the court and the issue about the validity of the will dated 19.6.1998 could be decided in an appropriate proceeding. There is no error , much less a jurisdictional in the order dated 12.10.2010 so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in 2002(3) ALL MR Page 788 does not have any applicability to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP