The court upheld that once a legal representative of a deceased plaintiff is substituted, further substitutions are not permissible under law.

1. Heard Mr. B. Haldar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. O. Laskar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

2. This is an application filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned Trial Court") in Title Suit No. 35/2013 whereby the application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act of 1963") for condonation of delay of 2334 days in filing the application for setting aside the abatement was dismissed.

3. For appreciating the dispute involved in the instant proceedings, it is pertinent to take note of that one Panna Lal Roy who is the father of the petitioners had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 35/2013 before the learned Trial Court seeking declaration that he is the land holder of the suit land described in Third Schedule to the plaint and owner of the building / suit rooms described in Fourth Schedule to the plaint; for confirmation of plaintiff's possession over the suit land; for declaration that the registered document No. 1487 dated 12.03.2004 of Karimganj Sub-Registry and the registered document No. 4807 dated 18.09.2004 of Karimganj Sub-Registry are illegal, malafide, collusive, without consideration, void and void - ab - initio as well as for declaration that the principal defendant No. 1 has not acquired any right, title, interest or possession in the suit land and in the suit building / suit rooms on the strength of the suit documents as well as for permanent injunction.

4. The said Panna Lal Roy expired in the year 2013 itself. The petitioners herein who were the daughters of Late Panna Lal Roy had admittedly severed their contacts with Late Panna Lal Roy during his lifetime and even at the time of his death they were not around. Late Panna Lal Roy during his lifetime had executed a Will in favour of the respondent No. 1 who was the defendant No. 9 in Title Suit No. 35/2013. A proceedings being Probate Title Suit No. 65/2014 was filed by the respondent No. 1 herein seeking probate of the Will. The learned Court of the District Judge, Karimganj vide the judgment and order dated 14.09.2017 granted the probate in favour of the respondent No. 1. On the basis of the said probate granted, the respondent No. 1 herein who was the defendant No. 9 in Title Suit No. 35/2013 was transpositioned as plaintiff of Title Suit No. 35/2013 vide an order dated 30.07.2018 passed in Misc Case No. 75/2015 by the learned Trial Court.

5. The petitioners herein, who, claim to have no knowledge either of the suit or even the probate proceedings filed an Appeal before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 14.09.2017 in Probate Title Suit No. 65/2014 which was registered and numbered as Test Appeal No. 3/2024. The said Appeal is presently pending before this Court.

6. The petitioners further on 26.08.2022 filed 3 (three) applications before the learned Trial Court seeking condonation of delay of 2334 days; an application seeking setting aside of abatement and for seeking substitution. The application under S.5 of the Act of 1963 was rejected on the ground that the cause shown was not sufficient and it is under such circumstances, the present proceedings have been filed.

7. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent No. 1 and given its anxious consideration to the materials on record.

8. In terms with the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") if the right to sue survives, the suit upon the death of the per