IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11712 OF 2008 SANDEEP THIRANI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARA PARSOUNI (BHAIROGANJ BAZAR), RAM NAGAR, BAGAHA VERSUS 1. STATE 2. COLLECTOR WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 3. ADDL COLLECTOR WEST CHAMPARAN 4. SDO, BAGAHA 5. DCLR, BAGAHA 6. C.O., BAGAHA-I ----------- 6 12.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing order dated 4.7.2008, passed by the Collector, west Champaran, Bettiah in RM case no. 99 of 2005-06 setting aside order passed by respondent no. 6 regarding fixation of rent. 3. The petitioner is son of sole respondent in aforesaid RM case before the Collector, West Champaran. He states that his father died on 31.12.2007 and as such the rent misc case proceeded against a dead person. He submits that it would appear from para 1 of the impugned order that hearing in the matter concluded only on 23.6.2008, whereas his father died about seven months back. 4. Counsel for the State submitted that heirs of petitioner should have brought the aforesaid aspect to the notice of the court that the sole respondent died during the proceeding. However counsel for the petitioner submits hat it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to have got the aforesaid facts to the notice of the court, as Vinod Kumar Thirani was sole respondent in the case. 5. Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that there would be no abatement after death, if hearing has concluded and matter is posted for order or judgment. It would be useful to quote order - 2 - XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil procedure in extensio. No abatement by reason of death after hearing.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, whether the cause of action survives or not, there shall be no abatement by reason of the death of either party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncing of the judgment, but judgment may in such case be pronounced notwithstanding the death and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place. 6. In the instant case, it would appear from the impugned appellate order that hearing in the matter continued up to 23.6.2008, though sole respondent had died much earlier. The instant proceeding would not come under purview of Order XXII Rule 6 C.P.C. Proceeding would thus abate as sole respondent died during the pendency of hearing of case. The matter would have been different and case would not have abated, if hearing would have concluded before his death. Hon’ble Apex court in case of Amba Bai and ors versus Gopal and others, reported in (2001) 5 SCC 570 has observed that continuance of a case against a dead person is a nullity. 7. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 4.7.2008, passed in RC case no. 99/2005-06 by Collector west Champaran, Bettiah is set aside, as the hearing continued against a dead person without bringing his heirs on record. As the appeal succeeds on this point alone, this court has not gone into the merits of the case. 8. As the order is being set aside on a technical point, the case is remitted back to the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah for fresh hearing after noticing the heirs of Late Vinod Kumar Thirani. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).