IMPORTANT POINT
Substitution – Only purpose of substitution is continuation of case – Substitution as LR in a case by itself will not give any title in favour of person so substituted.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise out of an order in a pending Second Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The necessary facts for our consideration are as follows:

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 were plaintiffs in a civil suit where Swami Shivdharmanand Ji Maharaj @ Deo Shankar Tiwary (hereinafter referred to as ‘Swami Shivdharmanand’) was one of the defendants. It was a title suit seeking declaration regarding the suit property which is situated in Bihar. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on 26.03.1991. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Consequently, the defendant Swami Shivdharmanand filed a second appeal, which is still pending before the Patna High Court.

Meanwhile the defendant, who had filed the second appeal passed away on 20th March, 1999. There were two claimants, or successors of the “Gaddi” of Swami Shivdharmanand, who sought substitution in place of Swami Shivdharmanand in the Second Appeal. These were (a) Swami Triyoganand Ji Maharaj @ Ram Narayan Bind (hereinafter referred to as ‘Swami Triyoganand) and (b) Swami Satyanand Ji Maharaj @ Ramjee Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Swami Satyanand’) who is respondent no.6 in the present appeal.

4. Initially, Patna High Court directed the Trial Court to conduct an enquiry in the matter as laid down under Rule 5 of Order 22 of Civil Procedure Code, for the purpose of substitution. The Trial Court did its enquiry and submitted the report before the Patna High Court, where the findings were that Swami Satyanand (i.e., present respondent No.6) is the Legal Representative (hereinafter referred to as ‘LR’) of Swami Shivdharmanand and is liable to be substituted as the appellant before the High Court. Objections were filed to the said report by the other party, which is the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant before this Court. The Patna High Court instead of giving a decision based on the report and the objections, passed an order on 24.02.2009, allowing both the parties (Swami Satyanand and Swami Triyoganand) to be substituted as LRs to Swami Shivdharmanand. This order of the Patna High Court came to be challenged by both the parties (i.e., Swami Triyoganand as well as Swami Satyanand), before this Court. This court vide order dated 08.02.2018 had set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter to Patna High Court, with directions to consider the report of the Trial Court as well as the ‘objections of parties’ and then to substitute one of the two parties as appellant, thereby holding that only one of the two claimants should be substituted as appellant/defendant.

5. Consequently, the High Court passed an order dated 30.01.2019 wherein it upheld the findings of the Trial Court on the legal representation and came to the conclusion that Swami Satyanand is the LR of Swami Shivdharmanand. Thus, Swami Satyanand was ordered to be substituted as the appellant in the pending Second Appeal.

6. Now the fact of the matter is that when this order was passed by the High Court on 30.01.2019, Swami Triyoganand too passed away on 04.12.2018 and an adjournment was also sought to bring the LR of Swami Triyoganand on record, but the substitution could not be done. The Patna High Court went ahead and passed the order in favour of Swami Satyanand on the ground that the Trial Court in its report has found Swami Satyanand to be the LR of the appellant-Swami Shivdharmanand, and it is therefore needless to adjourn the matter any further.

7. Subsequently, the appellant before us, i.e., Swami Vedvyasanand Ji Maharaj (hereinafter referred to as Swami Vedvyasanand) moved two applications before the Patna High Court on 22.02.2019. The first was to substitute himself in place of Swami Triyoganand, while the second was to recall the order dated 30.01.2019. Both these applications i.e., IA Nos.7 and 8 of 2019 were taken up and dismissed vide the impugned order on 19.06.2019.

8. In doing so, the reasons given by the High Court are