IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.431 of 2007 Shashi Bhushan Rai, son of late Man Mohan Rai, resident of village Chainpura, P.O. Hariharpur, Via Janakpur Road, P.S. Pupri, District Sitamarhi. ……. Defendant-Ist Party- Petitioner versus 1. Siwan Bhandari @ Sewak Bhandari, son of late Baldeo Bhandari, resident of village Madhubane, P.O. Bedaul, Via Janakpur Road, P.S. Pupri, District Sitamarhi. …Plaintiff Ist Party-Opposite Party 1st Party. 2. Shivjee Bhandari, son of late Hitoo Bhandari, resident of village & P.O. Bhutahi, P.S. Sonbharsa, District Sitamarhi. …Plaintiff 2nd Party-Opposite Party 2nd Party. 3. Smt. Deodharia Devi, wife of Sewan Bhandari, Resident of village Madhubani, P.O. Bideni, Via Janakpur Road, P.S. Pupri, District Sitamarhi. …Defendants 2nd Party-Opposite Party 2nd Party. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, Advocate. For Opp. Parties : None. --------- 02/ 18.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1- petitioner challenging order dated 15.01.2007, by which the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Sitamarhi rejected the application dated 16.11.2006 filed by the defendant-petitioner for abatement of the suit and allowed the substitution application dated 13.12.2006 filed by the plaintiffs for substitution of heirs of plaintiff no.2 after setting aside abatement and condoning the delay in Title Suit No. 72 of 1994. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiffs- opposite parties for declaration that the sale-deed dated 19.08.1991 executed by the heirs of Saryug Bhandari in favour of petitioner- defendant no.1 was forged, fabricated, collusive, void, without 2 consideration and not binding on the plaintiffs, and also for declaration of the plaintiffs’ title and confirmation of their possession over the suit land as well as for other ancillary reliefs, including alternative relief for recovery of possession and injunction. 4. The said suit was contested by the defendant- petitioner, whereafter issues were framed and hearing of the suit started. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff no.2 Sajjan Bhandari admittedly died on 22.06.1997 and for nine years no step for substitution of his heirs was taken by the remaining plaintiffs and hence on 16.11.2006 the defendant-petitioner filed an application in the court below that the suit had abated due to non-substitution of heirs of plaintiff no.2. Within one month of filing of the said application, which was pending, the plaintiffs filed an application on 13.12.2006 for substituting the heirs of plaintiff no.2 and also for setting aside abatement and condoning the delay. Both matters were considered and decided by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 15.01.2007. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the aforesaid impugned order of the learned court below but from a perusal of the said order it transpires that the learned court below has considered the matter in detail and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the position of law has taken a very proper view holding that since the plaintiffs had common interest and plaintiff no.1 being alive continued the 3 suit, it cannot abate as a whole and since the heirs of plaintiff no.2 were ladies and plaintiff no.1 was illiterate rustic person could not inform his lawyer about the death of plaintiff no.2 and, accordingly, disposed of the said applications allowing substitution application after setting aside abatement and condoning the delay. 6. Thus, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )