(1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 9th July, 1993 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Purnea in Title Appeal No. 48 of 1989.
(2.) THE relevant facts for deciding the present appeal are that the plaintiff -appellants had allegedly purchased certain lands from one Ramphal Yadav. However, one Bhutari Devi, wife of Ramphal Yadav filed Title Suit No. 611 of 1967 against the plaintiff -appellants and others and obtained an ex parte decree. No notice was served in that title suit. When the judgment was passed in this suit on 11th June, 1970, the plaintiff -appellants filed Title Suit No. 1072 of 1970, praying that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 611 of 1967 be declared as fraudulent, illegal and void. During the pendency of this Title Suit, Bhutari died and the plaintiff -appellants did not know that Bhutari Devi had left behind any heir. So her name was sought to be expunged from the cause title of the plaint and it was accordingly expunged. However, the suit was dismissed after concluding the hearing and production of evidence. Then, the plaintiffs above, filed F.A. No. 48 of 1989. During the pendency of this appeal, the daughter and sons of Bhutan Devi appeared and prayed before the Court that the suit and appeal, both abated and thereafter, the appellants ascertained from the voter list etc. and filed a petition for substituting the heirs of Bhutari Devi, after condoning the delay. However, the plaintiff's prayer was rejected and the appeal and the suit, both were abated.
(3.) BEFORE me, it was submitted that in the interest of Justice, the Court ought to be liberal and allow the parties to seek a decision from the Court on contest after adjudication of the rights.