This revision has been filed by defendant No. 1. The two plaintiffs brought a suit against the two defendants, namely one Surendra Lal Das and other Chittaranjan Das for ejectment of the defendants from the suit house situated on the land as described in the Schedule of the plaint. It may be stated herein that Surendra Lal Das, defendant No. 1 is the father of plaintiff No. 1. This suit was filed in the year 1981 and this suit has not reached even the stage of hearing because the parties filed one revision after another.

2. Earlier there was a civil revision before this Court being Civil Revision No.111 of 1983 and it was dismissed for default on 22.12.89. The defendant No.1 Surendra Lal Das died while the civil revision was pending before this Court. It may be mentioned herein that Surendra Lal Das though appeared in the suit did not file any written statement and did not contest the suit. Even he did not appear in the revision as mentioned earlier and did not contest the same. Thereafter, when the matter sent back to the trial Court, before the trial Court an application was filed on 20.5.91 under Order 22 Rule 4 (4) read with section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to grant exemption to the plaintiff from substituting the heirs or the legal representatives of the defendant and to allow the plaintiff to proceed with the suit. It was stated in that application that the defendant No. 1 had no interest in the suit and it is for that reason the defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit.

3. An objection was filed by the defendant No.2 on 1.7.91 and the trial Court after hearing both the parties on 12.11.91 passed the following order:

"12.11.91 : Both sides present Sri Debabrata Sarma, learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court to the petition No.381 of the plaintiff and states that since defendant No.1 (since deceased) did not file any written statement and did not have any interest in the suit. There is no necessity for substituting his heirs. Perused the record. The plaintiffs' above petition is allowed and they are exempted from substituting the legal representatives of the defendant No.1. Fixed 26.11.91 for steps before hearing."

4. It is this order which is challenged in this revision application.

5. I have heard Sri BK Goswami, learned Advocate for the revision petitioner and Sri AC Sarma, learned Advocate for the opposite parties.

6. Before we proceed further it may be stated herein that in the year 1976 by amendment Order 22 Rule 4 (4) of the CPC was inserted in the CPC. That sub-rule (4) is quoted below:

"(4) The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place.''

7. Sub-rule (4) as quoted above will show that it gives the power to the Court to exempt the plaintiff from substituting the heirs of any defendant who has died or if he had not appeared in the suit or in case he appears but fails to contest, and without substituting the Court may pronounce the judgment even against such defendant as if it was pronounced before his death. Even before this amendment was introduced in the CPC that was the rule of the four High Courts i.e. in the High Court of Madras, Calcutta, Andhra Pradesh and Assam.

8. The object and reasons for incorporation of this sub-rule was as follows: That the delay in the substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant was one of the cause of delay in the disposal of the suits and in order to cut down that delay it was felt that the substitution of the legal representatives of the non contesting defendant would not be necessary and the judgment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document