Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-X, Aurangabad in Probate Case No. 8/2012 / 15/2021, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court allowed the application dated 29.01.2021 filed by the respondents for substitution in place of probate petitioner, Ramji Mishra, and transposed the name of one of the opposite parties/respondents as plaintiff/petitioner.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as it appears from the record, are that one Ramji Mishra filed a Letters of Administration/Probate Case No. 08 of 2012 for probate of an unregistered Will making his son Bipul Kumar as one of the opposite parties/respondents. The petitioner, coming to know about the said probate case, filed his objection and also sought his impleadment on 18.12.2012, claiming that the land in question was under his possession. The petition of the objector was allowed and he was made one of the defendants. During pendency of the aforesaid probate case, the plaintiff/petitioner, Ramji Mishra, died and an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) for substitution of the plaintiff has been filed on 29.01.2021. A reply to the said application was filed on 19.03.2021. The learned trial court vide order dated 25.01.2022 allowed the said application thereby bringing on record the heirs/legal representatives of the plaintiff on record which included one of the defendants, namely Bipul Kumar, respondent no. 4 herein. The said order is under challenge before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned trial court overlooked a number of facts and committed patent illegality. The learned trial court did not consider the fact that the petition filed for substitution was neither affidavited nor verified. No provision has been mentioned for substitution of heirs/legal representatives of the plaintiff. The learned trial court further failed to consider the anomaly that whether defendant no. 4 could be made one of the plaintiffs without filing any application by him under appropriate provision of law. The learned trial court committed error of jurisdiction as it has no power of transposition of defendant to the category of the plaintiff without taking recourse of appropriate statutory provision. The learned counsel further submitted that substituting the name of defendant no. 4 in place of plaintiff is contrary to the law as he was already impleaded as the defendant and in capacity of opposite party, he has filed rejoinder on 30.04.2012 itself. Learned counsel further submitted that where a power is given to do certain thing in certain way, it must be done in that way and not at all. The transposition of a person from defendant to plaintiff has been made without any application being filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code and the same is not permissible. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act provides that Will is to be probated only in favour of the executor and there is no provision for substitution of the heirs/legal representatives of the executor. If a probate petitioner is dead, probate petition would simply lapse. Learned counsel next submitted that even moving application under Section 151 of the Code was not permissible when the application should have been filed under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code for substitution. All the aforesaid facts and circumstances go on to show that the impugned order could not be sustained.

Learned counsel referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manilal Mohanlal Shah & Ors. vs. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad & Anr, reported in AIR 1954 SC 349, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked to circumvent the mandatory provisions of the Code. Learned counsel n