IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11357 of 2011 Pramod Kumar Versus Mostt.Tunni Kumari & Ors ----------- 02. 19.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by the Munsif, Ist Court, Patna in Eviction Suit No.15 of 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petitioner filed the application before the Court below informing the Court that the defendant No.1 has died and, therefore, the eviction suit has abated because no substitution has been filed within time. By the impugned Order, the learned Court below rejected the application holding that the suit will not abate because other legal representatives have already been substituted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not even been made party-defendant in the suit. From perusal of the substitution application which has been annexed as Annexure ‘2’ to this 2 writ application, it appears that the legal representatives have been mentioned at paragraph 3 and according to the impugned order, the said legal representatives have already been substituted in the suit. The petitioner is not a party. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)