The court ruled that applications for substitution and condonation of delay can be combined, emphasizing that procedural law should serve justice rather than punish parties, thereby validating the substitution order.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 and Mr. Yuvraj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5.

2. It appears that notice upon O.P. Nos. 7(A) to 7(C) has already been effected, however they have chosen not to appear in the matter and earlier with a view to provide one more opportunity to them, the matter was adjourned on 30.06.2025 and today also nobody has responded on behalf of them in spite of repeated calls, in view of that this petition is being heard in absence of O.P. Nos. 7(A) to 7(C).

3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein prayer has been made for setting aside the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-VII, Hazaribagh, in Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2020 [Misc. Civil Application Nos. 203 of 2022, 204 of 2022, 147 of 2023 and 426 of 2023], whereby, the learned appellate court has been pleased to allow the application filed by the opposite parties under Order-XXII Rule-3 read with Section 151 of CPC along with two limitation petitions under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT .

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Sugan Mahto was the common ancestor of the petitioner and the opposite parties, who acquired land in village Sandh and in Village Haram Shivdih, P.S. Barkagaon, District Hazaribagh. The said Sugan Mahto died before the survey settlement operation leaving behind his five sons namely Parash Nath Mahto and Pritam Mahto from first wife and Tanak Mahto, Puran Mahto and Punit Mahto from the second wife and they jointly inherited the said land. He submits that the Partition Suit No. 45 of 2001 was instituted for the partition of the land admeasuring total area of 46.67 acres, which was decreed by the judgment dated 08.08.2011 and the decree dated 18.08.2011, passed by the learned Sub-Ordinate Judge, Hazaribagh. Against the said judgment, the defendants/opposite parties have preferred first appeal before the High Court, which was registered as F.A No. 118 of 2011 against the original plaintiff Bhola Mahto and others wherein after on the notice issued by the High Court, the petitioners herein appeared in the said first appeal.

5. Learned counsel submits that in the meantime, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court has been changed, as such, the said first appeal was transferred to the learned District Judge, Hazaribagh, wherein the said appeal was re-numbered as Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2020. He then submits that the original plaintiff Bhola Mahto died on 08.04.2013, the original Plaintiff No. 3 Ramesher Mahto died on 23.10.2013 and Respondent No. 4 Jhalo Mahto also died on 02.10.2013 and all the three original plaintiff/defendants were substituted by their legal representatives by order dated 15.01.2014 and notices were issued to the substituted respondents and on receipt of the notice, the substituted legal representatives appeared and filed their Vakalatnama. He submits that the plaintiffs filed a petition on 22.11.2022 stating inter alia that respondent No. 5(F) namely Dilo Devi died on 04.03.2015 and the respondent No. 7 Mukhani Devi also died on 24.05.2011.

6. He further submits that another petition was filed on 25.11.2022 for substitution of the legal heirs of the plaintiff Basudeo Mahto, who happens to be the plaintiff No. 5, who died on 06.02.2022 and the said