IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16597 of 2011 Hind Keshri Yadav Versus Most. Manjula Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 22.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed against the order dated 24.2.2010 passed by Sub Judge-7th, Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 368 of 2001 whereby the learned court below exempted the plaintiff respondent from substituting the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.3. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the said deceased defendant No.3 no doubt appeared in the suit but did not file any written statement nor contested the suit. Finding this fact that the defendant No.3 neither filed written statement nor contested the suit the learned court below deleted his name and exempted the plaintiff respondent from substituting the legal representatives. In view of Order 22 Rule 4 Sub Rule 4 the court has the jurisdiction to exempt the plaintiff respondent from exempting him to substitute the legal representatives. Therefore, this impugned order is within the purview of Order 22 Rule 4 Sub Rule 4. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)