The legal heir's substitution must follow due process as stipulated in procedural law.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER

11 04-12-2025 The present application has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 20.01.2020 passed by A.D.J. 5^th Bettiah, West Champaran in Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court has without holding inquiry under order 22 rule 5 directed for substitution of respondent no. 1.

2. Heard the learned lawyers for the parties.

3. Learned lawyer for the petitioner submits that he has filed a Title Suit No. 655 of 2015 for declaration of the fact that temple i.e. suit property is a private temple of plaintiff and other ancillary reliefs against many defendants. During course of trial defendant no. 1 Rajeshwar Tiwari died and for deletion of his name in the column of the defendants aggrieved petitioner filed a petition under order 22 rule 4 of the C.P.C in which his name was deleted but on the basis of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the defendant some other person namely Balkishore Das has been impleaded as legal heir of the respondent no. 1 Rajeshwar Das.

4. The learned lawyer for the petitioner further submits that without holding any inquiry merely on the basis of the facts raised in the rejoinder his name has been impleaded as defendant which is not legal and just. The counsel further Das. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondents Rajeshwar Das so his impleadment in place of Rajeshwar Das is legal and just.

5. It is admitted fact that Rajeshwar Das and his name has been deleted as respondent no. 1 in Misc. Appeal No. 22 of 2016 but if there is dispute that chela of Baleshwar Das is legal heir of Rajeshwar Das or not it should be decided on law laid down under order 22 rule 5 C.P.C and not suo moto merely on the assertion of any person which has not been done in this case.

6. During course of argument learned lawyer appearing for both the parties submits that since Baleshwar Das has also died on 11.06.2025 during pendency of this Misc. Appeal. Hence, the aforesaid impugned order dated 20.01.2020 is set aside and the learned Appellate Court is requested to decide the issue of legal heir representative of Rajeshwar Das if it requires only on the basis of order 22 rule 5 of the C.P.C.

7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.

(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)