Appellate Division Cases
Md. Hossain and others…………………………….Appellants
= Versus =
Dilder Begum and others …………………………..Respondents
Mahmudul Amin Choudhiiry J
Mainur Raza Choudluiry J
Mohammad Gholam Rabbani J
Md. Ruhul Amin J
JUDGEMENT DATE: February 19th, 2001
Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
It is true that there is no limitation for substitution of the heirs and deceased parties in a revisional application but in a suit for partition the heirs of the deceased defendants or plaintiffs as the case may be should be brought on record or else the complication shall follow. In such a situation when an application has been filed for substitution on setting aside the abatement it ought to have been allowed.
Civil Appeal No. 91 Of 1999 (From the judgment and order 23.5.1999 and
15.6.1999 dated passed by the High Court Division Civil Revision No. 176 of 1990).
Mr. Moqbul Ahmed. Advocate, instructed by Mr. A. K. M. Sluihidid Huq. Advocate-on-Record. For appellants
Mr. Md. Nowab Ali. Advocate-on-Record. For respondent Nos 1-27
Not represented. For respondent Nos. 28-40
MAHMUDUL AMIN CHOUDHURY J: This appeal by leave is against order dated 23.5.1999 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 176 of 1990 rejecting the appellant’s application for substitution of the heirs of deceased respondents on the ground that the revision case stood abated against deceased opposite parties and that no separate application was filed for setting aside the abatement.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 27 as plaintiffs instituted partition suit No. 275 of 1983 before the learned assistant Judge, Cox’s Bazar praying for declaration of title and partition in respect of the suit land comprising an area of 2 acres impeding the predecessor of the present appellants and other defendant-petitioners and preformed defendant respondents. The predecessor of appellant 1(a) to 1(c), 2(1) to 2(8), 8 (1) to 8(5) and other defendants entered appearance in the suit and contested the same and the suit was decreed in preliminary form by judgment and order dated 25.5.1987. Against that judgment and decree predecessor of the present appellants and other defendants preferred Other Appeal No. 52 of 1987 before the learned District Judge. Cox’s Bazar and the learned Subordinate Judge. Cox’s Bazar dismissed the appeal. On bing aggrieved by and dissatisfied wiih the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid appeal the appellants and otheres preferred Civil Revision No. 176 of 1990 before the High Court Division. During pendency of the Civil Revision Defendant Nos. 2 8 and plaintiff Nos. 19, 20. 21 and 27 died and an application was filed before the High Court Division for substitution of the heirs and representatives of those deceased persons but the High Court Division by order dated 23.5.1999 rejected the application holding that there was no prayer for setting aside the abatement and no separate application was filed for that purpose and the application that was filed was not in proper form and order, thereafter separate application praying for substitution of the heirs If the aforesaid deceased persons were filed on 9.6.1999 which was rejected by the High Court Division on 15.6.1999 holding that the applications are out of time and the Rule has already abated against all the petitioners. On being aggrieved by this order of High Court Division the petitioners moved this Division and leave was grated in the following terms: “It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that there can be no question of abatement but for the combined application of the provision of order 22, Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the material articles of schedule 1 to the Limitation Act bin as neither order 22 nor Limitation Act applied lo Civil revision application the revision case can not be held to have abated against the deceased parties. The High Court Division acted illegally in rejecting the application of the petitioner to bring the heirs of the deceased parties on record”.
3. Mr. Moqbul ahmed learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that it is well settled that in a revision application there is no limitation for substitution of the heirs of parties in litigation. He submits that in the present case application for substitution was filed with a prayer for setting aside abatement on condonation of delay but the same were rejected. He also submits that in a suit for partition all the parties nterested in the result ought lo have been brought on record which the High Court Division has not considered.
4. Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where there are mote plaintiffs or defendants than one and any of them dies and where the light to sue survives to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone or against the surviving defendants or defendants alone the court shall cause an entry to that effect to be made on record and the
suit shall proceed at the instance of the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs or against the surviving defendant or defendants. In a suit for partition right to sue survives till final decree is made and when some of the defendants or the plaintiffs dies right to sue survive
and in thai case heirs of surviving plaintiff or defendants as the case may by should be brought on record and that has been tried to be done by the appellant before the High Court Division. It is true that there is no limitation for substitution of the heirs and deceased parties in a revisional application but in a suit for partition the heirs of the deceased defendants or plaintiffs as the case may be should be brought on record or else the complication shall follow. In such a situation when an application has been filed for substitution on setting aside the abatement it ought to have been allowed.
5. Having considered the submission made by the learned Advocate for appellant we hold that the High Court Division committed illegality and wrong in rejecting the application for substitution The appeal is accordingly allowed. The aforesaid order passed by the High Court Division rejecting the prayer for substitution is hereby set aside and the prayer for substitution is allowed on setting aside abatement. There will be no order as to costs.
Source : I ADC (2004),49