Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Petitioners have come up in this writ petition against the order dated 16.3.2013 passed by the Court of first instance and the revisional order thereto dated 2.4.2014.

2. Briefly, the facts leading to the passing of the aforesaid orders is that a suit was decreed in the year 1980. After about 18 years one of the defendants to the suit Smt. Sundar Devi applied for setting aside the said decree vide Misc. case No. 82 of 1988. During pendency of the said Misc. case Smt. Sundar Devi died and respondent No. 2 Km. Veena Modi applied on the basis of her Will for being substituted in her place. The Substitution application has been allowed by the impugned orders.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No. 2 is not entitle to be substituted on the basis of the above Will as the aforesaid Will is neither probated nor any Letters of Administration on its basis has been granted in favour of respondent No. 2.

4. Order 22 Rule 3 and 4 CPC provides that on the death of any party to a suit or civil proceeding his/her legal representative have a right to pursue the proceedings from the