The court emphasized the need to resolve family disputes and condoned the delay in filing the application for setting aside abatement and substitution, highlighting the importance of resolving such disputes.

Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. Defendant No. 10 petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.6.2005 passed by the Xlth Subordinate Judge, Patna in Title Suit No. 653 of 1987, substituting the heirs of defendant no. 2 late Pratap Dhari Singh, has filed this civil revision application.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the original plaintiff Ram Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh filed suit for declaration that he is the co-sharer to the extent of 1/6th share with defendant 1st set and in joint possession in respect of the properties mentioned in Schedules of the plaint, impleading Girija Devi and Birendra Dhari Singh as defendant nos. 2 and 3 respectively. Sri Ram Janki Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited (petitioner herein) claims to be a registered Housing Co-operative Society. It claims to have purchased part and parcel of the suit land from defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 for its use through registered sale deed. After it came to know about institution of the suit made prayer for being added as defendant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Said prayer was allowed and Sri Ram Janki Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited was added as defendant no. 10. Defendant no. 10 filed written statement and contested the suit. During the pendency ol the suit original plaintiff, namely, Ran Kishore Prasad Narayna Singh died on 15.3.2001 leaving behind his widow, two sons and a daughter. Maksudpur Institute of Research and Education in Natural anil Social Sciences (opposite party no. I herein) filed petition dated 11.6.2001 no der Order I Rule 10 and Sec.151 o the Code of Civil Procedure through it authorised trustee, namely, Ajay Singh f( being substituted as plaintiff on the basil of deed of assignment alleged to hav been executed by the original plaintiffi its favour with respect to all the properties including the suit property. Said application as allowed by order dated 5.7.2003 and Maksudpur Institute of Research and Education in Natural and Social Sciences, hereinafter referred to as the MIRENS, was substituted as plaintiff through its trustee, namely, Ajay Singh. Defendant no. 10 being aggrieved by the same filed Civil Revision No. 1680 of 2003 before this Court impleading defendant no. 2 as opposite party no. 7. During the pendency of the said revision application, defendant no. 2 died, which fact has been noted in the order of this court dated 28.6.2004. However, it seems that no step was taken to substitute his heirs before this Court and the civil revision application was disposed of by order dated 8.12.2004.

3. After the disposal of the aforesaid civil revision application, defendant no. 10 filed petition dated 29.7.204 in the suit informing the court abut the death of defendant no. 2 Pratap Dhari Singh and prayed for its dismissal having been abated for non-substitution of his heirs within the period of limitation. Plaintiff then filed petition dated 9.8.2004 for substituting his heirs. On 6.1.2005, another petition was filed to add the relief of setting aside abatement in the petition dated 9.8.2004. Another application was filed on 24.1.2005 under Order XXII Rule 4(4) read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for deleting the name of defendant no. 2 on the ground that he is not a necessary party. Plaintiff did not press its application dated 9.8.2004 and 6.1.2005 and both were dismissed for default by order dated 25.2.2005. After dismissal of the aforesaid petitions, plaintiffs pressed the petition dated 24.1.2005 for deleting the name of defendant no. 2, but said application was rejected by order dated 8.4.2005. Nobody assailed the aforesaid order, but the plaintiff filed another petition dated 25.5.2005 for substituting the heirs of defendant no. 2 in his place. Further he filed application dated 31.5.2005 for adding the prayer for setting aside the abatement. Defendant no. 10 opposed the prayer primarily on the ground that the plaintiff despite knowledge about th