Point of Law: Rejection by the High Court of the applications to set aside abatement, condonation and brining on record the legal representatives does not appear, on the peculiar nature of the case, to be a just or reasonable exercise of the Court's power or in conformity with the avowed object of Court to do real, effective and substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Katakey, learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar in Title Appeal No. 14/2000.

3. The question which is involved in the instant matter is as to whether the non-substitution of some of the legal representatives of the original plaintiff as well as non-substitution of some of the legal representatives of the original defendant no. 2 would amount to abatement of the appeal being Title Appeal No. 14/2000 as a whole or for that matter the claim of rights being severable, the Appeal shall not abate.

4. This proceeding arises out of a suit being Title Suit No. 189/1977 filed by one Surendra Narayan Sukul who happens to be the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The said suit was filed against one Deochand Sarda who happens to be the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners before this Court. The said suit was a suit for eviction of the defendant no. 1 i.e. Deochand Sarda on the ground of non-payment/default in payment of the rent and for delivery of khas possession of the suit premises. The defendant no. 2 who was subsequently impleaded in the said suit took a stand that the plaintiff did not have any right over the suit premises. Though every detail may not be necessary which led to the passing of the impugned order but what is necessary to take note of that the said suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in the instant proceeding was dismissed and thereupon Title Appeal No. 14/2000 was filed which was also dismissed. Pursuant thereto a Revision was filed before this Court which was registered and numbered as CRP No. 381/2002 which was also dismissed and thereupon a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court being SLP (C) No. 15192/2014 which subsequently was converted into Civil Appeal No. 9956/2018 and by a judgment and order dated 25.09.2018 passed in the said Civil Appeal the matter was remanded to the First Appellate Court with a direction to dispose of the same within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the records and the First Appellate Court received the record on 26.11.2018.

5. It is further apparent from a perusal of the impugned order that on 20.12.2018 the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff i.e. Biswajit Sukul and 14 others were substituted before the First Appellate Court without any objection. However, in doing so there was no prayer for substituting one of the sons of the original plaintiff Satyajit Sukul and his heirs as well as one daughter of the plaintiff Ratna Trivedi and her heirs. Further to that, some of the legal representatives of the original defendant no. 2 namely Suchit Sarda @ Sujit Sarda, Gouri Shankar Sarda and Uma Sarda were also not substituted.

6. This aspect of the matter was brought to the attention of the First Appellate Court by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners i.e. the original defendant no. 1 who was the Respondent No. 1 in the said appeal by filing a Petition No. 1728/8 before the First Appellate Court thereby praying that the entire appeal stands abated on the ground of not substituting the legal representatives of the persons named hereinabove. The Respondents herein who were the Appellants in Title Appeal No. 14/2000 filed their written objection to the said petition challenging the maintainability of the said application and denying the contents thereof. The First Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 21.06.2019 rejected the said application filed by the original defendant no. 1 holding inter-alia that the appeal had abated only so far as the LRs of the deceased appellant i.e. appellant’s son Satyajit Sukul and the appellant’s daug