NETRANANDA DEHURI Vs. BHAGIRATHI DEHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER assails correctness of order passed by the learned Subordinate judge, Udala accepting prayer for substitution made by opposite party No. 2 in place of original' plaintiff Bhagirathi Dehuri in a suit for partition.

(2.) FACTUAL antecedents are as follows :

(3.) MAIN plank of petitioner's challenge is that requisite inquiry was not conducted by the learned subordinate judge and as such the impugned order is not sustainable. It is submitted that a look at the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 22 makes it clear that evidence has to be recorded. According to him, if the appellate Court before determining the question can direct any subordinate Court to try the question and return the records together with evidence, if any, recorded at such trial, its findings and reasons therefor, it is to be held that statutorily recording of evidence is necessary when an application for substitution is made before the trial Court itself. It was also submitted that undue emphasis has been laid on voters' list which in any event was not conclusive. Great emphasis was laid . on applicant's description as Manika Dei and not Manika Dibya as according to the objector, a widow never describes herself as Dei and always describes herself as Dibya according to local custom.