Legal representatives under a will may be substituted to continue suit, and a reasoned Order 22 Rule 5 order is rarely revisable.

Persons who represent, or intermeddle with, a deceased party's estate may be brought on record as legal representatives for the limited purpose of continuing the suit, without finally deciding title or the validity of a will. An enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC is confined to substitution and does not determine substantive rights under the will. A reasoned order passed after such enquiry is not ordinarily open to interference in revision under Section 115 CPC unless a jurisdictional defect is shown. The trial court's order allowing substitution and setting aside abatement was therefore affirmed, and revision was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether persons claiming under the will could be brought on record as legal representatives for the purposes of prosecuting the suit. (ii) Whether an order passed after enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was liable to be interfered with in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether persons claiming under the will could be brought on record as legal representatives for the purposes of prosecuting the suit.

Analysis: The expression "legal representative" includes a person who in law represents the estate of the deceased and also a person who intermeddles with the estate. The determination under Order 22 Rule 5 is only for the limited purpose of continuing the suit and does not finally decide title to the property or the validity of the will. The respondents were added only to enable further prosecution of the suit, without adjudicating their substantive rights under the will.

Conclusion: The respondents could be brought on record for the limited purpose of representing the estate, and the objection to their impleadment failed.

Issue (ii): Whether an order passed after enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was liable to be interfered with in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A decision under Order 22 Rule 5 reached after enquiry is not conclusive and operates only for the continuation of the suit. Where the trial court has held such enquiry and passed a reasoned order, revisional interference is not warranted merely because the petitioner disputes the result. The proper scope of Section 115 does not extend to upsetting such an order in the absence of the kind of jurisdictional defect that would justify revision.

Conclusion: The revision petition was not maintainable against the enquiry-based order, and no ground for interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The order of the trial court allowing substitution and setting aside abatement was affirmed, and the civil revision petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who represents or intermeddles with the estate of a deceased party may be treated as a legal representative for the limited purpose of continuation of the suit, and a reasoned order under Order 22 Rule 5 passed after enquiry is not ordinarily amenable to revision under Section 115.

---