IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.2179 of 2007 Jaldhari Pandey, son of late Ram Bachan Pandey, resident of Village- Udhura Pargana Bhojpur, P.O. Dalupur, P.S. Brahampur, District- Buxar (Bhojpur) --- Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner. Versus 1. Rampravesh Pandey 2. Ramgopal Pandey 3. Ramdeo Pandey 4. Ramkripal Pandey, all sons of late Meghuraj Pandey, resident of Village-Udhura Paragana, P. O Dalupur, P.S. Brahmpur, District- Buxar. 5. Piary Devi, wife of Anant Tiwary, resident of Village + P.O. Chotki Nainijor, District-Buxar. 6. Monakia Devi, wife of Dharmraj Tiwary, resident of Village Dhangai, P.O. Dalupur, District- Bhojpur. 7. Kamlawati Devi, wife of Baleshwar Kuar, resident of Village + P.O. Dumari, District- Buxar, all 5 to 7 are daughters of respondent no.2 Meghraj Pandey. 8. Kapil Rai, son of late Lakshmi Rai. 9. Baleshwar Rai, son of late Lakshmi Rai, both are proposed heirs of deceased respondent no.3, resident of Village-Jawahi Jagdishpur, P.O. Hathilpur, P.S. Brahmpur, District- Buxar ---- Defendant/Respondent/Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 5. 20.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and challenges the validity of the order dated 28.9.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C. No.II, Buxar, in Title Appeal No. 99 of 1974, whereby his application under Order 22, Rules 4, 9 and 10, seeking substitution of the heirs of the deceased defendant, Ram Ekbal Rai,, has been 2 rejected. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that Ram Ekbal Rai, one of the defendants in the suit, died, and the substitution application was filed on 3.2.2007. The remaining defendants contested the application and filed objection stating therein that there is inordinate delay in filing the substitution application. On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned trial court has rejected the plaintiff’s case that he had for the first time come to know of the demise of Ram Ekbal Rai during the course of arguments on 11.1.2007. He has further rejected the plaintiff’s case that deceased Ram Ekbal Rai had become a Sadhu and was roaming from place to place and was, therefore, not aware of the death. The learned trial court has been further pleased to hold that the deceased was living in the village itself, he died five years prior to the date on which substitution application was filed and, therefore, is badly hit by delay. He further found that other technical defects for setting aside abatement has not been made. In view of the finding recorded by the learned trial court that the deceased was 3 resident of the village and died five years ago, he has in his discretion passed the impugned order with which we would not like to interfere. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)