Legal heirs must follow proper procedural rules for substitution and establish their right to intervene in ongoing proceedings.

ORDER

1. In a pending matter before this Court wherein, Shri Ranabir Choudhury, the respondent No. 2 herein had preferred a revision petition being aggrieved by an order dated 17.12.2014, passed by the Meghalaya Board of Revenue in MBR/RA No. 2 of 2013. In such revision petition, Smti. Prabhashini Dutta was also impleaded as respondent No. 1 with the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), East Khasi Hills District, Shillong as the respondent No. 2.

2. The revision petition numbered as CRP. No. 2 of 2015 has proceeded in its usual course, when this Court was informed of the death of Smti. Prabhashini Dutta. On submission made by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that since, no relief is sought for as against the deceased respondent No. 1 (in the main revision petition), this Court on prayer made, vide order dated 25.07.2023, had accordingly struck off the name of the deceased respondent No. 1 from the proceedings.

3. However, Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has sought for leave to file an appropriate application in order to bring the legal heir and representatives of the deceased respondent No. 1 in place of the deceased respondent No. 1 so as to contest the proceedings before this Court. Such prayer being allowed, an application registered as MC(CRP) No. 4 of 2024 was accordingly filed, the same being taken up herewith for consideration.

4. Heard Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the applicant, who has submitted that this Court vide order dated 25.07.2023 had struck off the name of the respondent No. 1 in the main petition on her death. However, since the time of her death on 22.02.2019, her son Bishwanath Dutta was pursuing the proceedings in the matter. But, he too expired on 13.01.2024 and due to the communication gap between the parties and the counsels, necessary steps for substitution of the deceased respondent No.1 could not be done so.

5. The learned counsel has further submitted that since the legal heir of the deceased Prabhashini Dutta has also expired, the remaining legal heirs have now issued necessary no objection to allow the present applicant to be impleaded in the case as party respondent in substitution of the original deceased respondent.

6. Under the circumstances as is evident in the case herein, the learned counsel has submitted that the applicant has now approached this Court with this instant application made under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of the applicant as a party herein.

7. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has referred to the case of Puran Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors reported in AIR 1996 (SC), 1092 para 10 which reads as follows.

“10. As such even if it is held that Order 22 of the Code is not applicable to writ proceedings or writ appeals, it does not mean that the petitioner or the appellant in such writ petition or writ appeal can ignore the death of the respondent if the right to pursue remedy even after death of the respondent survives…”

8. Per contra, Mr. K. Paul, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 herein, who is the petitioner in the main revision petition, while opposing the contention of the applicant has submitted that the prayer in this application would show that the applicant has sought for being impleaded as a party respondent in the main proceedings and additionally, for the order dated 25.07.2023 to be vacated. However, the applicant has failed to submit pleadings as to why he should be impleaded and also as to how he is a necessary party to the proceedings.

9. Taking this Court to the order dated 25.07.2023, the learned Sr. counsel has submitted that by such order, this Court ha