The execution court cannot adjudicate the rights of the parties based on conflicting Wills. The subsequent Will is presumed to be genuine, and the petitioners can establish their rights before a competent court of law.

( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition the petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14. 3. 1996, Annexure-3 to the writ petition and order dated 27. 11. 2000, Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE facts arising out of the present writ petition are that one Ram Swaroop Jauhari (now deceased) filed Suit No. 433 of 1963 against the tenant seeking eviction and arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed on 23. 2. 1968. The aforesaid decree has been confirmed by the appellate court and the Second Appeal No. 1409 of 1973 was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 24. 3. 1979. After dismissal of the second appeal, an execution proceeding was initiated which was numbered as Execution Case No. 19 of 1980. The defendant-respondents filed an objection under Section 47, C. P. C. , which was rejected by the executing court on 13. 10. 1983. A revision was preferred and the same is still pending. During the pendency of the revision, the decree-holder namely Sri Ram Swaroop Jauhari died on 25. 5. 1989. On 28. 8. 1989, an application supported by an affidavit was submitted by the petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of Ram swaroop Jauhari on the basis of the Will executed in his favour on 28. 2. 1989. Another application was filed by one Smt. Sheelawati, respondent No. 3 claiming herself to be the heir of ram Swaroop Jauhari (since deceased) on the basis of the Will dated 23. 5. 1989. An objection was taken by the petitioners and on the basis of the clear dispute between the two persons regarding legal heirs of the deceased, the court below has passed an order remitting the issue to the trial court to decide the aforesaid question after affording an opportunity to the parties. It has been submitted that the attesting witnesses of both the Wills were examined and the handwriting expert was also produced. It is alleged that the Will dated 23. 5. 1989, which was produced before the Sub-Registrar, the Sub-Registrar had refused to register the same vide his order dated 21. 7. 1989. The respondents aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed an appeal and the appeal was allowed and the Will dated 23. 5. 1989, executed by Ram Swaroop Jauhari was registered. The trial court decided the issue in favour of Smt. Sheelawati on the basis of the Will dated 23. 5. 1989 and directed that she should be impleaded in place of the deceased and vide order dated 27. 11. 2000, the court below has held that Smt. Sheelawati is the legal heir and representative of the deceased. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners have filed a revision and the court below vide its order dated 27. 11. 2000 dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have approached this Court.

( 3 ) THE writ petition was entertained and an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioners and further proceedings in Revision No. 141 of 1983 was stayed by the order dated 23. 11. 2000.

( 4 ) THE counsel for the petitioners submit that in view of the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 5, c. P. C. , it was the duty of the court to allow the applications filed by the parties as the legal representatives and to decide the same on merits. The petitioners have placed reliance on the provision of Rule 5 and has submitted that where a question arises whether any person is or is not the legal representative of the deceased, such questions shall be determined by the court and if such questions arise before appellate court, the court below was obliged to remit the matter to the trial court for a decision. Order XXII, Rule 5 is reproduced below: determination of question as to legal representative.--Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court: provided that where such question arises before an appellate court, that Court may, before determining the