Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents 1st set.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.06.2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Patna in Title Suit No. 512 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the petition filed on behalf of the respondents 1st set for substitution of legal heirs of the sole plaintiff in title suit has been allowed.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the sole plaintiff in Title Suit No. 512 of 2012 died on 18.04.2015 and two petitions have been filed on 15.07.2015 and 02.07.2016, respectively for substitution of the legal heirs of sole plaintiff, Leela Devi, in her place. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petition dated 15.07.2015 could not be considered as in the said petition only the husband and sons of the deceased-plaintiff had been sought to be substituted in place of sole plaintiff whereas her daughters were not named as legal representatives. Thereafter, on 02.07.2016, another petition was filed for substitution of the daughters of the deceased plaintiff along with the persons already named in the petition dated 15.07.2015. But the said application has been filed without any application for setting aside the abatement which had already taken place. Learned senior counsel further submits that the learned trial court did not consider the fact that abatement has already taken place and allowed the application in cryptic manner by just mentioning that limitation is condoned and substitution petition is allowed in the light of facts discussed. Such orders could not be sustained. Learned senior counsel referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahant Niranjan Dass vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, reported in AIR 1992 SC 492, wherein it has been held that when there is knowledge of death, the application filed beyond 90 days of the date of knowledge would result in abatement of the appeal after death of the sole appellant.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-1st set submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same needs to be sustained. Learned counsel further submits that, in fact, first application was filed on 15.07.2015 by the husband and sons of the deceased plaintiff and it was well within time and there was no question of abatement taking place. Subsequently, another application was filed on 02.07.2016 and the said application was supported with a petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, if any. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter on 03.12.2016, another petition for setting aside the abatement has been filed, which was replied by the petitioner. So, it could not be said that there was no abatement petition on record. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been trying to deny the filing of the petition for substitution dated 15.07.2015 by placing the fact that the petition for substitution was filed on 02.07.2016, which is not correct. Learned counsel further submits that the prayer in original application dated 15.07.2015 was for substitution on behalf of the husband and two sons of the deceased-plaintiff whereas the second application dated 02.07.2016 was filed for substitution by adding the names of respondent nos. 4 to 7 in the array of parties as legal heirs of deceased-plaintiff though the application for substitution was already on record and it is a wrong submission that there was no prayer for substitution in the said petition. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents 1st set submits that there is no need to interfere with the impugned order.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

6. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that though the learned trial court has mentioned about the dates on which the applications for substitution have been filed,