MC 1494/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Ms. T Goswami, learned counsel for the applicants. Seen the office note dated 20.07.2011, which indicates that notices sent to the opposite party Nos. 9 (i), 9 (ii) & 9 (iv) have been returned with the remark of the postman refused . The office note further discloses that the A/D card acco mpanying the process addressed to the opposite party No.9 (ii) has not yet retur ned. It is submitted at the Bar that the opposite party Nos. 9 (i) to 9 (iv) res ide together. In the above view of the matter, having regard to the mode of dispatch of the no tice and the address to which the same had been sent, the service thereof on opp osite party Nos. 9 (i) to 9 (iv) is accepted. None has entered appearance on behalf of the above opposite party. On a consideration of the averments made in the application supported by an affi davit, the prayer for substitution of the opposite party as made in the applicat ion as the heirs and legal representatives of the original opposite party No. 9, Nirmal Saha (since deceased) is allowed. The office would make necessary corrections in the cause title. The miscellaneous application stands allowed.