IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.112 of 2009 RAJ MOHAN SINGH, SON OF VISHWANATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF BHAGWANPUR, P.O. AND P.S. – BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS ------- PETITIONER Versus 1. RAM NAGINA SINGH SON OF LATE RAJESHWARI SINGH, RESIDENT OF ARRAH ROAD, BHANDIP BHATHI, PARA, JUST NALA-CHAT ROOM NO. 3, BAMBAI NO. 98. ---PLAINTIFF/OPPOSITE PARTY 2. MOHAN SINGH, SON OF BUCCHAN SINGH 3. MOST. BHAGWATIA KUER WIFE OF BUCHAN SINGH 4. SAKUNTALA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF BUCHAN SINGH ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PASAI, P.S. – BHABUA, AT PRESENT P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT ROHTAS --- DEFENDANTS/O.P. 2ND SET. 5. HIRAMANI DEVI, AUGHTER OF RAJESHWAR SINGH, WIFE OF RAM BHARATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PUNAWA, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRIT – ROHTAS. ----DEFENDANT/O.P 3RD SET. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ravi Shankar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. R.K. Dubey, Adv. Mr. L.L. Pandey, Adv. For the opposite parties : None ------- 2. 23/1/2009 Mr. Ravi Shankar Dwivedi, Advocate, appears for the defendant- petitioner. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the 2nd Sub-Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua in Title Suit No. 35 of 1998 whereby substitution of the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff filed a petition for expunging the name of the plaintiff and substituting his legal representative after much delay of about 1 ½ years. He contends that no prayer for setting aside abatement as required under order 22, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was made by the said - 2 - legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in the aforesaid petition. He further submits that though a petition with a prayer for condoning delay was filed but the trial court was not satisfied with the explanation given in the aforesaid petition. Even then it has condoned the delay and allowed the substitution after awarding cost of Rs. 1,000/-. In my opinion in these matters, technical objections should not come into the way of doing justice. It would apt in this regard to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in K. Rudrappa, Appellant Vrs. Shivappa, Respondent, reported in AIR 2004, Supreme Court 4346, relying upon another decision of the Supreme Court in Ganeshprasad Badrinarayan Lahoti (D) by L.Rs. Vrs. Sanjeevprasad Jamnaprasad Chourasiya and another, contained in Civil Appeal No. 5255 of 2004 reported in 2004 AIR Supreme Court, weekly, 4607 wherein it has been held that technical objections should not come in the way of doing full justice between the parties and the Supreme Court, thus, had allowed substitution of legal representatives of the deceased even in the absence of a prayer for setting aside the abatement. In view of the above, the impugned order does not warrant interference of this Court in its discretionary revisional jurisdiction. As a result, this civil revision application is dismissed. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)