IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14210 of 2011 1. Vyas Prasad @ Vyas Pd. Yadav S/O Bhagwan Raut R/O Vill. + P.O. Ahwar Sheikh, P.S. Majhaulia, Distt.- West Champaran. …Petitioner Versus 1. Ashok Kumar S/O Late Jagarnath Singh R/O Vill. Gohiri Kothi, P.O. Gohiri Kothi, P.S. Jagdishpur, Distt.-West Champaran. 2. Arvind Kumar S/O Late Jagarnath Singh R/O Vill. Gohiri Kothi, P.O. Gohiri Kothi, P.S. Jagdishpur, Distt.-West Champaran. 3. Awdesh Prasad S/O Late Jagarnath Singh R/O Vill. Gohiri Kothi, P.O. Gohiri Kothi, P.S. Jagdishpur, Distt.-West Champaran. 4. Shambhu Prasad S/O Late Jagarnath Singh R/O Vill. Gohiri Kothi, P.O. Gohiri Kothi, P.S. Jagdishpur, Distt.-West Champaran. 5. Raj Kishore Prasad S/O Late Jagarnath Singh R/O Vill. Gohiri Kothi, P.O. Gohiri Kothi, P.S. Jagdishpur, Distt.-West Champaran. 6. Shyam Sundar Prasad S/O Late Jagarnath Singh R/O Vill. Gohiri Kothi, P.O. Gohiri Kothi, P.S. Jagdishpur, Distt.-West Champaran. 7. Usha Devi W/O Rabindra Kumar, D/O Late Jagarnath Singh R/O Vill.- Bishunpurwa, P.S. Lauriya, Distt.-West Champaran. 8. Asha Devi W/O Rameshwar Pd., D/O Late Jagarnath Singh R/O Vill. + P.O. Amaw Majhar, P.S. Bettiah (T), Distt. West Champaran. 9. Uma Devi W/O Shivshankar Pd., D/O Late Jagarnath Singh R/O Vill.- Inarwaghar, P.S. Paharpur, Distt. East Champaran. 10. Phuljhari Devi W/O Late Madan Pd. Yadav R/O Vill.-Ahwar Sheikh, P.O. Ahwar Sheikh, P.S. Majhaulia, Distt.-West Champaran. 11. Babhu Yadav S/O Late Madan Pd. Yadav R/O Vill.-Ahwar Sheikh, P.O.Ahwar Sheikh, P.S. Majhaulia, Distt.-West Champaran. 12. Lallan Pd. Yadav S/O Bhagwan Raut R/O Vill.-Ahwar Sheikh, P.O. Ahwar Sheikh, P.S. Majhaulia, Distt.-West Champaran. ………Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 30.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 1.2.2011 passed by Sub-Judge 3rd West Champaran At Bettiah in Title Suit No. 58 of 1988, whereby the learned court below allowed the application 2 of the respondents for substitution of the some of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after 19 years of date of death of defendant no.2 the learned court below by the impugned order brought on record the three daughters of the deceased defendant no.2. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the pre deceased widow and one son of the deceased defendant no.2 were earlier substituted. The learned court below found that since the Estate of the deceased was sufficiently represented by the legal representatives who was already on record, allowed the application. In AIR 1971 Sc page 742 and A IR 1975 page 184 it has been held that when one of the legal representatives is already on record, there is no question of abatement arises even though no application for substitution is made. Admittedly in the present case one son of the deceased defendant no.2 was already on record and therefore, there was no question of abatement. Moreover, the three daughters have not filed this application challenging the impugned order. The defendant no.1 has filed this writ application and it is submitted on his behalf that the suit has already abated. The court below has considered all these aspect of the matter and has allowed the application filed by the respondents. I, therefore, find no reason to interfered with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. M.Rahman (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) 3