The court emphasized the importance of allowing substitution in cases of intestate succession and upheld the rights of co-sharers in a partition suit.

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J.

Re: CAN 2131 of 2017

1. The sole appellant viz. Smt. Bilasini Bauri died intestate on 14th January, 2017 leaving behind her surviving her sons and daughters as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this application. The heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased appellant are major and sui juris.

2. The application for substitution was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

3. Hence, the application for substitution is allowed.

4. Let the legal representatives of the sole appellant as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this application be substituted in place and stead of the sole appellant.

5. The concerned department is directed to amend the cause title of the memorandum of appeal accordingly.

6. Let the vakalatnama which was filed by the substituted appellants along with application for substitution, be treated as a vakalatnama filed by them in the appeal.

Re: CAN 2130 of 2017

7. The instant appeal is a time barred appeal. There was 62 days delay in filing this appeal. Reason for the delay has been sufficiently explained by the appellant in the instant application for condonation of delay.

8. As a matter of fact, the appellant initially challenged the impugned order by filing a revisional application. It is only when the said revisional application was held to be not maintainable, the instant appeal was filed.

9. In this process, some delay was caused.

10. Since the reason for the delay has been sufficiently explained by the appellant in this application, we allow the appellant's prayer for condonation of delay. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned.

11. Let the appeal now be registered.

12. The application is thus, allowed.

Re: FMAT 963 of 2016

13. This appeal will be heard.

14. The lower court records need not be called for.

15. Since the respondent is represented by Mr. Roy, learned advocate, service of notice of appeal upon the respondent is dispensed with.

16. The appeal is thus, treated ready as regards service.

Re: CAN 9430 of 2016

17. After the appeal was admitted for hearing, when we were considering an application for injunction filed by the appellants in this appeal, we were invited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal.

18. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that all necessary papers which are required for disposal of this appeal, are annexed to the stay application.

19. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the present case.

20. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge was pleased to pass an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo as regards possession of the parties in respect of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. Such interim order was passed in a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The defendant/appellant felt aggrieved by the said order.

21. Hence, the defendant has filed the instant appeal before this Court.

22. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the plaintiff has no interest in the suit property. Thus, he contends that the learned Trial Judge ought to have refused to pass any interim order in such a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff where the plaintiff has no share in the suit property.

23. Let us now consider as to how far such contention of Mr. Basu can be accepted in the facts of the present case.

24. On perusal of the pleadings of the respective parties, we find that admittedly Shambhu Bauri was the owner of the suit property. He died intestate leaving behind his only son viz. Muktipada who inherited the suit property on the death of his father Shambhu Bauri. Muktipada had two wives namely Gangadevi and Purnimadevi. Sima was the daughter of Muktipada though his first wife namely Gangadevi. Purnamadevi was the second wife of Muktipada. Muktipada had one son and two daughters through his second wife Purnimadevi.