IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.566 of 2009 BASANTI DEVI Versus ASHARFI RAI & ORS ----------- 5/ 13.05.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.2.2009 passed by Civil Judge Ist (SD), Vaishali at Hajipur in Title Suit No. 50 of 2006 by which the learned trial Judge refused the petition of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party to the above noted suit. The reason for being impleaded, as pleaded by the petitioner, was that there was unprobated will said to be executed in favour of Shitali Devi, was the mother in law of the original plaintiff. The court below took a view that unprobated will did not create any title or vests any interest in a person who is legatee of the will and as such, was not covered by the term ‘legal representative’ as defined under section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court finds that the learned Judge was completely in error while recording the above finding inasmuch as the term ‘legal representative’ could be so wide to include the legatee under an unprobated will as was held in the case of Arjun Prasad Vs. Biteshwar Singh, reported in AIR 1982 Patna 208. It has been held by the court in the above decision that a legatee, created under a will which is yet to be probated, is very much covered by the term ‘legal representative’ and as such, was entitled to get implead in the suit. This revision petition is allowed and it is directed that the - 2 - petitioner shall be impleaded as one of the plaintiffs in the above noted suit by the learned trial judge. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)