The duty of a pleader to communicate the death of a party to the court, as per Order XXII Rule 10A, is imperative and should not be overshadowed by technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.) :

1. The impugned order No. 37 dated 26th March, 2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court, Hooghly in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2019 arising out of Title Suit No. 370 of 2018, directing the petitioners/opposite parties to furnish information regarding the names and addresses of legal heirs of deceased defendant No.7/opposite party No.7, after rejecting the prayer of the petitioners dated 10.12.2020, under 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for recording the abatement, as against defendant No.7/opposite party No.7, who left this world on 14.05.2018, is subject of challenge in this revisional application.

2. Original Title Suit No. 88 of 2014, subsequently transferred and renumbered as Title Suit No. 370 of 2018, had already been dismissed for default by order dated 04.04.2019. Seeking restoration of the suit, opposite party/plaintiff registered Misc. Case No. 20 of 2019 under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. In connection with Misc. Case, opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 field a petition dated 10.12.2020, seeking recording of abatement order as against the defendant No.7/opposite party No.7, namely Sri Mandan Baul Das, who died on 14.05.2018, on the ground that legal heirs of defendant No.7/opposite party No.7 could not be substituted by resorting to the provisions available for substitution within the time provided under the law.

4. Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners/defendants/opposite parties submitted that the Court below had mechanically rejected their prayer for recording the abatement order, as against the defendant No.7/opposite party No.7, and proceeded thereafter illegally directing petitioners to furnish information regarding the names and addresses of legal heirs of deceased defendant No.7/oppsoite party No.7.

5. It was contended by Mr. Chatterjee that under the behest of an order under Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioners could not be compelled to furnish the names and addresses of legal heirs, left by deceased defendant No.7/opposite party No.7, and it was highly illegal having no sanction of law. Incidentally Mr. Chatterjee referred the Vakalatnama, furnished by the learned advocate appearing in the Court below for deceased defendant No.7/opposite party No.7, and taking recourse to the Vakalatnama, further contended that by reason of change of brief, the subsequent learned advocate, appointed for petitioners/opposite party Nos. 1 to 6, could not be compelled to furnish the required information, as to who are the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.7/opposite party No.7, simply for adhering to the mandate available under Section XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, learned advocate representing the opposite party/plaintiff in reply submitted that there had been a collusion in suppressing the death information of deceased defendant No.7, which could be easily understood upon visualising the cremation/burial certificate, furnished by petitioners/opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 in the Court below.

7. Mr. Bhattacharya contended that petitioners/opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 had there definite information as regards the death occurred to deceased defendant No.7/oppsoite party No.7. It was thus further contended by Mr. Bhattacharya that since the original suit was for declaration and partition, the question of abatement would not necessarily arise, and more so the required death information neither could be furnished by the learned advocate representing the deceased defendant No.7 in the court below, nor by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6/defendants, or their learned advocates for taking effective steps as regards the substitution of legal heirs, left by deceased defendant No.7/opposite party No.7.

8. Upon advancing such submission Mr. Bhattachaya tried to impress upon the Court that death information of deceased defendant No.7 was deliberately suppressed ther