Mandatory summary inquiry under CPC Order 22 Rule 5 is required before allowing a propounder of a Will to be impleaded.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 5 OF AUGUST, 2025 REVIEW PETITION No. 935 of 2022 GHANSHYAM CHAUBEY (DIED) THR. LRS. (I) SMT. SHARDA CHAUBEY AND OTHERS Versus ALOK RAGHUVANSHI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the applicants.

Shri S.S. Kushwaha - Government Advocate for the State.

Shri Abhishek Singh Bhadauria and Shri Rohit Bansa- Advocates for the respondents No.1 and 2.

ORDER This review petition under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been filed for review of order dated 14/07/2021 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.1776/2017, by which the petition filed by propounder of Will for their impleadment on the basis of Will has been allowed.

2. Since, the Hon'ble Judge who had passed the order under review is not available in Gwalior Bench of this Court, therefore, this review petition has been listed before this Court.

3. It is suffice to mention here that one civil suit is pending in which the propounder of the Will wanted to get himself impleaded on the basis of Will allegedly executed by testator. The application was rejected by the trial Court. However, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE

14/07/2021 passed in W.P. No.1776/2017 allowed the writ petition and permitted the propounder of the Will to be impleaded as legal representative/testator.

4. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that as per the provisions of Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC whenever a propounder of a Will seeks his impleadment on the basis of Will, then the trial Court should conduct a summary enquiry into the correctness of Will, and only thereafter, the propounder of Will, can be permitted to be impleaded. However, in the present case, the summary enquiry was not conducted and without directing for summary enquiry, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has directed the impleadment of propounder of Will. Thus, it is submitted that it is an error apparent on the face of record. To buttress, his contentions counsel for applicants has relied upon the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jaladi Suguna (deceased) Through LRS. Vs. Satya Sai Central Trust and Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 521 in which it has been held as under:-

15. Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does not amount to bringing the legal representatives on record. When an LR application is filed, the court should consider it and decide whether the persons named therein as the legal representatives, should be brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased. Until such decision by the court, the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have no right to represent the estate of the deceased, nor prosecute or defend the case. If there is a dispute as to who is the legal representative, a decision should be rendered on such dispute. Only when the question of legal representative is determined by the court and such legal representative is brought on record, can it be said that the estate of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRINCEE the deceased is represented. The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. Such determination for such limited purpose will not confer on the person held to be the legal representative, any right to the property which is the subject- matter of the suit, vis-à-vis other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased.

16. The provisions of Rules 4 and 5 of Order 22 are mandatory. When a respondent in an appeal dies, the court cannot simply say that it will hear all rival claimants to the estate of the deceased respondent and proceed to dispose of the appeal. Nor can it implead all persons claiming