An order passed under Order 22 Rule 5 C.P.C. is limited to the purpose of carrying on the suit and does not confer any right on the legal representative to heirship or to property.

1. - This revision is directed against an order of the Addl. Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 31.1.1983 passed on an application of the plaintiff under order 22 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. Stated in short, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that Devi Singh (who died during the pendency of the suit and now represented by his widow, daughter etc.) instituted a suit for declaration of title, perpetual prohibitory injunction and recovery of possession against 4 defendants Rameshwar Prasad, Takhat Singh, Badadur Singh and Sohan Kanwar. It was alleged that Takhat Singh had no right or interest or title to transfer the property in dispute to defendant No. 1 Rameshwar Prasad. It was also alleged that Bhawani Singh who is son of Devi Singh went in adoption to defendant Takhat Singh. Plaintiff Devi Singh passed away during the pendency of the suit and on his death his widow Smt. Roop Kanwar and daughter Smt.Vallabh Kanwar were substituted as plaintiffs in his place and his natural son Bhawani Singh was impleaded as one of the proforma defendants This was done on an application moved by Smt. Roop Kanwar and Smt. Vallabh Kanwar. The suit continued and Vallabh Kanwar also died. Her legal representatives, who were her husband, 2 sons and 5 daughters were substituted in her place. The main defendant Takhat Singh also passed away on 5-5-70. The substituted plaintiffs moved an application that Bhawani Singh who is the adopted son of Takhat Singh be substituted in his place. It was also prayed that necessary amendments in the plaint be permitted to be made on account of the result flowing from the substitution of Bhawani Singh in place of the defendant Takhat Singh. This application was opposed by defendant Rameshwar Prasad who is the revision petitioner before me. The trial court raised three questions for decision, one of which is whether Bhawani Singh is the adopted son of late the Takhat Singh". The trial court recorded the evidence of the parties and heard them. By the impugned order he allowed the plaintiff's application and substituted Bhawani Singh in place of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh. The learned Civil Judge did so taking the view that Bhawani Singh was the adopted son of Takhat Singh. Aggrieved against the said order, the defendant Rameshwar Prasad has come up in revision.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

4. It was argued by Shri Lodha learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that the question whether Bhawani Singh was the adopted son of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh should not have been decided in a proceeding under order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. The question of Bhawani Singh's adoption was involved as one of the main points of dispute in the suit itself. His fear is that the trial court will take the question as to whether Bhawani Singh is the adopted son of Takhat Singh finally decided by this impugned order. He has further argued that the impugned order should not be taken to have decided the question of adoption finely for all times. The evidence on adoption recorded by the trial court should be confined only for the purposes of order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. Mr. Keshote learned counsel for the non-petitioners contested this position. According to him both the parties have led evidence on the question whether Bhawani Singh is the adopted son of Takhat Singh. As such the finding of the trial court should not be confined only fur the purpose of order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. The adoption should be taken to have been finally decided. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration and I am of the opinion that the contention raised by Mr. Lodha on behalf of the revision-petitioner has much substance.

5. The question before the trial court was to decide as to who was the legal representative of the deceased defendant Takhat Singh. It was only to find out whether there is any legal representative of the deceased defendant Takh