LALIT KUMAR KHETTRY Vs. HAIMANTI DEB ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order allowing substitution is a subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application.

(2.) The original plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction. The plaintiff expired after the conclusion of his evidence on October 21, 2010. Within the period of limitation on 18th January, 2011, the application was filed for substitution under Order 22 Rule 3 by the heirs of the sole plaintiff. The said application was dismissed on 17th May, 2011 on the ground that the said application was not filed in proper form. While dismissing the said application, opportunity was given to the plaintiff to file a fresh petition for substitution and June 9, 2011 was fixed for fresh steps to be taken by the plaintiff. Consequent thereupon, another application was filed on June 9, 2011 for substitution along with an application for condonation of delay. The said application was allowed.

(3.) Mr. A.C. Kar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that on the date of filing of the said application, the suit has abated and without a formal prayer being made for setting aside of abatement, the Court has no jurisdiction to allow the application filed by the legal heirs for substitution. In this regard, Mr. Kar has relied upon the decisions (Union of India Vs. Ram Charan & Ors., 1964 AIR(SC) 215) and (Madan Naik Vs. Mst. Hansubala Devi, 1983 AIR(SC) 676).