GOUTAM DEY Vs. ANJAN DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present challenge is directed at the instance of some of the defendants in an eviction suit, inter alia on the ground of reasonable requirement.

(2.) Two orders of the trial court have been challenged in the instant revisional application. By the first order dated April 6, 2016, an application filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1, captioned to be one under Order XXII Rule 4(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, was allowed, thereby substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the sole deceased defendant. Subsequently, after waiting for about three years, the present petitioners took out an application for recall of the order dated April 6, 2016. The said application for recall being rejected vide order dated July 22, 2019, the present revision has been filed challenging both the said orders dated April 6, 2016 and July 22, 2019.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to file separate applications or make separate prayers for substitution as well as for setting aside abatement and condonation of delay in filing the said applications, since much more than 150 days have elapsed before filing of the substitution application.