IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.144 of 2008 Lakhan Kumar Verma son of Basudeo Mahto, resident of village Dhangama, P.O. Biju Bigha, P.S. Sitamarhi, District Nawada……………………Defendant no.2-Petitioner. Versus 1. Faiyaz Ahmad son of late Md. Idris, resident of Mohalla Mirdah Toli, P.O., P.S. Nawada, District Nawadah substituted son of late Bibi Humaira Khatoon wife of Md. Idrish …………….Opposite party. 2. Ambika Prasad son of Budhan Rawat, resident of village Kunjaila, P.S. Roh, District Nawada. 3. Md. Khurshid Alam son of Hafiz Md. Khalil, resident of Mohalla Nonia Tola, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada………………….Defendants-Opposite parties. For the petitioner : Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 05/ 24.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.2- petitioner challenging order dated 31.10.2007 by which learned Munsif, Nawada rejected his application for abatement of the suit due to non-substitution of the heirs of the plaintiff except her son, who was substituted in place of the sole plaintiff vide order dated 23.07.2007 in Title Suit No.95 of 1982. The aforesaid suit was filed by one Bibi Humaira Khatoon against the defendants including the petitioner for declaration of her title over the suit land and also for declaration that the two sale deeds executed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 be declared void and for other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was contested by the defendants. It is not in dispute that the original sole plaintiff Bibi 2 Humaira Khatoon died on 28.12.2006 and within the statutory period of limitation her son Md. Faiyaz Ahmad filed an application dated 17.01.2007 for being substituted in her place. The said application was allowed by the learned court below on 31.05.2007, which was never challenged. However, the defendant-petitioner filed an application in the learned court below on 23.07.2007 under the provision of Order XXII Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for abatement of the suit so far the deceased plaintiff was concerned stating that apart from the substituted heir Md. Faiyaz Ahmad there were other children of the deceased sole plaintiff, who had not been substituted. This application of the defendants has been rejected by learned court below vide its order dated 31.10.2007 against which the instant civil revision has been filed. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below relying upon the abovementioned provision of Order XXII Rule 3(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the said objection is absolutely unfounded and is against the settled principles of law and it cannot be legally entertained. The abovementioned provision specifically provided that where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, but here in the instant case the son of the deceased sole plaintiff had filed an application within the statutory period of limitation and hence 3 there is no question of abatement of the suit. Furthermore, even if the deceased sole plaintiff had more than one children out of whom only one has been substituted the law is well settled that the said substituted heir will represent the estate of the deceased and there will be no question of any abatement. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)