IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2268 of 2006 AJAY SHANKAR MISHRA son of Sri Ramadhar Mishra at present residing in house of the plaintiff no.1 now deceased at mohalla Mahadeopuri, P.O. G.P.O., P.S.Gardanibagh, District Patna and doing service under the Government of Bihar, Education Department in the office of District Mass Education at Patna having his office at Raja Bazar, P.O. Veterinary College, P.S. Shastrinagar, District Patna… … …. Defendant/Petitioner Versus 1.RAMADHAR MISHRA son of late Ram Dhani Mishra at present resident of mohalla Dhakanpura(Mahadeopuri), P.O. G.P.O., P.S.Gardanibagh, District Patna, …Plaintiff No. 2/Opposite Party Ist Set 2.Uday Shankar Mishra son of Sri Ramadhar Mishra, 3.Hridaya Shankar Mishra son of Sri Ramadhar Mishra, 4. Mostt. Ganga Devi wife of late Bijay Shankar Mishra, 5.Lalit Narain Mishra son of late Bijay Shankar Mishra, 6.Kalyan Shankar Mishra son of late Bijaya Shankar Mishra, All residents of village Atimi, P.S. Nawa Nagar, District Buxar(Bhojpur), at present resident of mohalla Dhakanpura(Mahadeopuri), P.O. G.P.O., P.S.Gardanibagh, District Patna, 7. Ruby Devi daughter of late Bijay Shankar Mishra and wife of Sri Pramod Kumar Tripathi, resident of mohalla Mithapur, P.S. Jakkanapur, District Patna, 8. Rinki Devi daughter of late Bijay Shankar Mishra and wife of Sri Pramod Tripathi, resident of Sanjay Nagar, Bye-pass, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna, 9.Arti Devi daughter of Sri Ramadhar Mishra and wife of Sri Arbind Kumar Pandey, resident of mohalla Rajendra Nagar, Road No. 10, Quarter No. 7/37, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, District Patna, …Substituted legal heirs of deceased no. 1 as plaintiff no. 1 to 1(g)…Opposite Parties IInd Set… … …Opposite Parties. 2 28.08.2009 Heard Mr. Abinash Kumar, learned counsel for the 2 petitioner. Defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17.11.2006, whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff-opposite party no. 2 under Order XXII Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for substituting the heirs and legal representatives of deceased plaintiff no. 1 has been allowed by the Sub Judge XI, Patna in Title Eviction Suit No. 30 of 2004. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the deceased plaintiff wanted eviction of this defendant- petitioner (who happens to be elder son) and the plaintiff-mother having died, right to sue does not survive upon anybody, therefore, the suit must have been declared as abated. I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. As the plaintiff no. 1 is still alive and within time a petition for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff had been filed by one of the plaintiffs, there will be no question of abatement of the suit. In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 17.11.2006. As a result, this civil revision is dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)