IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury C.O. 951 of 2023 Hari Shankar Yadav VERSUS Renu Yadav & Ors.

For the petitioner: Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Adv.

For opposite party no. 1 to 3 Ms Debasree Dhamali, Adv.

Ms. Riya Ghosh, Adv.

Last Heard On: March 20, 2025 Judgment On: March 26, 2025 Biswaroop Chowdhury,J:

1. The petitioner before this Court is a defendant in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is aggrieved by the Order dated 19-01- 2023 passed by the Learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court Howrah in Title Suit No. 379 of 2020. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Order dated 19-01-2023 passed by the Learned Trial Judge allowing prayer for substitution has come up with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the opposite party no 1, 2 and 3 in the application for substitution made under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus:

A) That the sole plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

B) That the sole plaintiff namely Shaligram Yadav died intestate on13-

04-2021 leaving behind the following persons under the following relationship as his legal heirs and successors and right to sue survive.

C) The above named persons and the defendant are the only legal heirs of deceased plaintiff and interested to proceed with the suit. The right to sue survives.

3. Prayer was made before the Learned Court to incorporate the names of opposite parties no- 1 to 4/applicants and to delete the name of the sole plaintiff Shaligram Yadav. Death certificate of the sole plaintiff was also enclosed.

4. The petitioner/defendant submitted objection to the application.

5. It is the contention of the defendant/petitioner that the statements made in paragraph no-2 of the said petition is false and frivolous. It is further contended that the applicants are not the heirs of the deceased plaintiff and as per Hindu Succession Act deceased male’s surviving heirs are his mother, wife, son and daughters but in the instant case the applicants failed to mention the same. It is also contended that the applicants are not the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff of the instant case and they have not properly sworn the affidavit and hence their statements cannot be relied.

6. By Order dated 19/01/2023 the Learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the application made under Order 22 Rule 3 by the applicants/opposite parties no. 1 to 3 by observing and directing as follows.

‘Record is taken up for hearing of application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC dated 31-07-2021 wherein the petitioner stated that the sole plaintiff Shaligram Yadav died on 13.04.2021 leaving behind the petitioners as their legal heir are required to be substituted in place of sole deceased plaintiff. Defendant filed written objection against the same and denied and disputed all facts of the petition and prayed for rejection of the same.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the both sides.

It is fact that the instant petition is within time, therefore there is no impediment to allow the said petition.

Hence it is. ORDERED.

That the petition under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC filed by the petitioner on

31.07.2021 is hereby allowed on contests but without costs.

Let the name of deceased sole plaintiff be deleted from the cause title of the plaint. Let the names of Legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff be substituted as plaintiff respectively as per schedule of the petition dated 31-07-2021 in the cause title of the plaint. Note changes in register. Let the name of the deceased sole plaintiff be deleted from the cause title of the plaint. Extension petition filed by the petitioner is considered and allowed. Ad-interim order is extended till the next date fixed.

Fix 12/04/2023 for hearing of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC w/o if any in the meantime.’

7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Order dated 19-01-2023 passe