The cause of action survives to the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased bargadar and they can carry on the pending proceedings.

This Rule is directed against order No. 14 dated 27.3.74 passed by Shri M.N. Haldar, learned District Judge, Hooghly, in Misc. Appeal No. 193 of 1973, rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for their substitution in place of their father, the plaintiff since deceased. The original plaintiff instituted a suit against the opposite parties for a declaration of his title as a bhagidar and for permanent injuction. The suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 178 of 1973 in the First Court of the learned Munsif at Chandernagore, District Hooghly.

2. The plaintiff's case was that he did not execute any deed of relinquishment or Istafa of his bhagchas right as was falsely alleged by defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 4 of 1973 of the same Court which was dismissed for non-prosecution on the basis of a petition of compromise between the defendant No. 1 and the sons of the plaintiff since deceased. It was the further case of the plaintiff that his possession was recognised by the Junior Land Reforms Officer. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction on which an ad interim injunction was granted by an order dated 12.7.73 but it was ultimately vacated by an order dated 24.9.73 and the application for injunction was dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal the plaintiff filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 193 of 1973 in the court of the learned District Judge, Hooghly. While the appeal was pending before the learned District Judge, Hooghly, the plaintiff, Nandi Charan Pakira, died on 16.1.74 leaving behind him the present petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives. On 23.2.74 the petitioners filed an application for substitution in place and stead of the deceased plaintiff to which the contesting opposite parties filed objections. The learned District Judge by an order dated 23.3.74 was pleased to reject the said application on the ground that the plaintiff had given Istafa in respect of the said land on 1st Baisakh, 1370 B.S. and a subsequent Islafa was also given by the four sons of the deceased bargadar. The learned Judge also rejected the application for substitution in view of the provisions contained in S. 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which, according to the learned Judge, provides that the bargadar while cultivating any land dies, then his lawful heirs can continue the cultivation. As the appellant was not cultivating the land the question of continuance of cultivation by the lawful heirs of the deceased bargadar does not arise and hence they cannot be substituted in place of the deceased bargadar. Against this order the petitioners have come up in revision before me.

3. Mr. Samir Kumar Mukherjee appearing for the petitioners has submitted that whether the bargadar was cultivating or not is a question that sub-judice in the suit and that should not be taken into consideration when the question of substitution arises. Whether the Istafa granted by the deceased plaintiff and his four sons is a valid Istafanama or not that is also a matter to be considered in the suit. These considerations should not affect the question of substitution of his heirs. He has further drawn my attention to S. 20B which provides that if a bargadar surrenders or abandons his barga rights then whether he has actually surrendered his rights voluntarily will be considered by the officer concerned. Therefore, the Istafanama granted by the deceased plaintiff and his sons will have to be considered by the officer concerned whether they were voluntarily granted or not and that should not affect the present question that is raised before me. Next Mr. Mukherjee has drawn my attention to S. 15A of the Land Reforms Act. Who amongst his heirs will cultivate the lands of the deceased bargadar will be decided by the Land Reforms Officer if this question comes up before him. Whether a bargadar is continuing cultivations at the time of h is death and who will be the next person to cultivate amongst his heirs that is a separate