IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 572 of 2025 ------

Ujjwal Kumar Bit @ Ujjawal Bit, S/o Late Panchanan Bit, R/o Village-

Sunderpur, PO and PS- Hiranpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand).

.... .... …. Petitioner Versus

1. Subodh Kumar Das, S/o Late Hari Mohan Das

2. Meera Das, W/o Late Uttam Kumar Das 3. Abhijit Das, S/o Late Uttam Kumar Das

4. Kanchan Das, S/o Late Uttam Kumar Das All are R/o Village- Sunderpur, PO and PS- Hiranpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand).

5. Binoy Bit, S/o Late Panchan Bit 6. Kajal Bit, S/o Late Panchan Bit

7. Khokhan Bit, S/o Late Panchan Bit

5 to 7 are R/o Village- Sunderpur, PO and PS- Hiranpur, District-

Pakur (Jharkhand).

.... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the O.P. Nos.2, 3 & 4 : Mr. Yasir Arafat, Advocate For the O.P. Nos.5, 6 & 7 : Mr. S. Jain, Advocate Mr. S.G. Piyush, Advocate ------

Order No.06 / Dated : 04.11.2025 Vakalatnama has already been filed on behalf of opposite party nos.2 – 7.

So far opposite party no.1 is concerned, notice has received by his daughter-in-law. Notice is accordingly declared to be validly served on opposite party no.1, who has not appeared despite service of notice, therefore the instant CMP will be heard ex-parte against the O.P. No.1.

Petitioner is the defendant and instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.05.2024 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.06 of 2015 whereby and whereunder, the petition under Order XXII Rules 2 and 4(i) of the CPC along with petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been allowed.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that notices were issued in the suit and pursuant to it, defendants entered into appearance and file their written statement. The suit was dismissed for default on 28.01.2019 as no step was taken on behalf of the plaintiff for six consecutive dates.

3. After the suit was dismissed for default, one of the plaintiffs namely Uttam Kumar Das died on 25..08.2021 and original defendant no.1 Panchanan Bit died in early 2021 leaving behind his four sons and two daughters.

4.As death had taken place, before the restoration of the partition suit, therefore, the substitution petition was filed and allowed only after the restoration of the suit.

5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, substitution petition has been allowed, condoning the delay and without any specific prayer for setting aside abatement without service of notice to the petitioner or any of the surviving defendants vide impugned order.

6. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that reason for substitution has been assigned in para 8 which is as under: -

“Perused the record. It transpires that this record was dismissed on 28.01.2019 and thereafter the same was restored on 30.11.2023. The Ld. counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that plaintiff no.2 Uttam Kumar Das, who was suffering from serious illness, expired on 25.08.2021 leaving behind his widow Meera Das and two sons namely Abhijit Das and Kanchan Das. And due to Covid 19, the civil court works were almost closed since 23.03.2020 to 24.01.2022. That after the restoration of the suit in its original file, it has become necessary to substitute the name of the deceased plaintiff Uttam Kumar Das. That similarly the defendant Panchanan Bit also expired as early 2021 leaving his four sons namely Binay Bit, Kajal Bit, Khokan Bit and Ujjwal Bit and two daughters namely Nimita Das and Rekha Das both the daughters have been married and their husbands’ address is not known to the plaintiff no.1. That the abovementioned legal heirs of deceased plaintiff and the deceased defendant are the legal representatives and also legal heirs of them. That the right to sue still survives. The plaintiff also filed the petition under Section 5 to condone the delay caused.”

7. The facts are not in dispute that one of the plaintiffs namely Uttam Kumar Das died on 25