IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the context of abatement of a suit and the extended limitation period due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Sustainability of the order No. 34 dated 14th July, 2022 passed by the learned Judge, Bench-XII, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 375 of 2018, whereby the application preferred by the applicants/respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) under order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code) was allowed, has been called in question in this appeal.

2. Before going to address the contentions canvassed by the respective parties, it would be apt to narrate the essential facts leading to presentation of this appeal. By a register deed of lease dated 26th May, 1956, three rooms of the premises located at 11 no.... Sir Hari Ram Goenka Street, Kolkata-7 (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises) were let out to the appellant at a monthly rental of 153/- for a period of 20 years. Thereafter one Pradeep Kumar Goenka represented by his father and natural guardian namely, Bhagwati Prasad Goenka granted further lease of the suit premises for a period of 5 years to the appellant by virtue of a registered deed of lease dated 6th day of June, 1977. Again, by virtue of a deed of lease dated 25th August, 1981 the suit premises was let out to the appellant for a further term of three years commencing from 7th August, 1980 to 23rd August, 1983.

3. Pradeep Kumar Goenka transferred the entire premises to one Chhatar Singh Chhajer and four others by dint of one deed of sale dated 13th August, 1987. Subsequent thereto, by another deed of conveyance dated 4th July, 1989, Chhatar Singh Chhajer and four other vendors transferred the entire premises in favour of one Smt. Chanda Devi Soni, since deceased. Before her demise, Smt. Chanda Devi Soni bequeathed the entire premises to her husband namely, Shyam Lal Soni, since deceased by executing one Will dated 10th February, 2012. Mr. Shyam Lal Soni obtained probate of the Will and became sole owner of the entire premises.

4. By efflux of time, the deed of lease expired. Consequently, Mr. Shayam Lal Soni, since deceased issued an ejectment notice dated 20th July, 2015 requesting the appellant to quit, vacate and deliver khas possession of the suit premises unto him but despite receipt of such notice, the appellant did not vacate and deliver the suit premises to Mr. Soni and hence, Mr. Soni was constrained to institute a suit vide. Title Suit No. 375 of 2018 before the learned Court below seeking decrees of recovery of possession, mesne profit and other allied reliefs.

5. During life time Mr. Shyam Lal Soni also by executing a Will dated 25th November, 2018 bequeathed the entire suit premises in favour of his two sons, who happen to be the respondents herein. During pendency of this suit, Mr. Soni died on 4th December, 2020. The respondents obtained probate from the Testamentary and Intestate jurisdiction of this Court in PLA No. 77 of 2021. After obtaining probate, the respondents preferred an application under order 22 rule 10 of the Code seeking leave from the Court to continue the suit with a prayer made simultaneously to treat the application taken out by the executor with similar prayer as ‘not pressed’. By the order impugned the learned Court below allowed the application granting permission to the respondents to continue the suit. Hence, being aggrieved by the order dated 14th July, 2022, this appeal has been preferred, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was originally abated and the application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code is not maintainable and the Will contains a statement of Codicil, as such the Will should not have been relied upon and/or based by the learned Court below in passing the order impugned.

6. Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal submits that plaintiff died on 4.12.2020. The legal heirs did not make any effort for their substitution. Consequently, after the prescribed period, the suit abated. The respondents who happen to be legal heirs of the plaintiff