SABITRI RANA Vs. MOUSUMI PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order No.23 dated 16.9.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bishnupur, in Title Suit No.16 of 2009.

(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel of both the parties and also after going through the materials-on-record it could be detected that one Shrimati Purabi Rana, since deceased, filed the aforesaid Title Suit No.16 of 209 in the Court below praying for declaration, injunction and some other consequential reliefs. In the said suit plaintiff, aforesaid Purabi Rana, since deceased, claimed herself to be the legally married wife of late Shankar Chandra Rana who was an employee posted under Executive Engineering Kangshabati Channals and also claimed for retiral benefits as wife of aforesaid deceased employee. Shankar Chandra Rana died-in- harness in 2008 and the suit was filed in 2009, plaintiff's marriage with Shankar Chandra Rana was solemnized on 13.12.1979 and during her marriage tie with said Sankar she gave birth to 7(seven) daughters. In the said suit, present petitioner as defendant No.1 also claimed herself to be the legally married wife of said deceased Shankar Chandra Rana and also claimed absolute retiral benefits of said Shankar Chandra Rana. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff Purabi Rana died leaving behind her daughters (opposite parties) as legal heirs. Thereafter, the surviving legal heirs of deceased plaintiff by filing a petition under Order 22 Rule 3 and Section 151 of CPC before the learned Court below prayed to be substituted. It would be explicit from the materials-on-record that the learned Court below upon hearing the learned Counsel of both sides and also considering the position of law allowed the said application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the petitioner/defendant No.1 Shabitri Rana has come up before this Court praying for setting aside the impugned order.

(3.) Ms. N. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while making submission contends that the impugned order is not tenable under the law inasmuch as with the demise of the sole plaintiff the suit stood abated. In support of his contention he relies upon the decision (Basudeb Dey Vs. Swati Dey & Ors., 2010 4 CalHN 1018) as also the decision (Sri Samir Nath Bhattacharya Vs. Smt. Sandhya Bhattacharjee & Ors., 2006 1 CalLJ 204 ) and emphatically urges that in view of the existing circumstances of the case as also the observations contained in the decision referred to above, the learned Court below ought to have not allowed the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.