IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1632 of 2007 SHREE KRISHNA PRASAD, SON OF LATE SINGHESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- BASHDEOPUR, POST-BASHDEOPUR, DISTRICT- MUNGER. ………………………………….PETITIONER-DEFENDANT. Versus 1. BISHNU KUMAR SINHA @ BISHUNDEO PRASAD, SON OF BHAGWAN PRASAD, HUSBAND OF DECEASED PLAINTIFF KAMLA PATI DEVI. 2. SANJAY KUMAR SINHA, SON OF BISHUNDEO PRASAD. 3. RAJESH KUMAR SINHA, SON OF BISHUNDEO PRASAD. 4. REKHA SINHA, WIFE OF SRI KRISHNA MOHAN PRASAD. 5. SUDHA SINHA, WIFE OF SRI PANKAJ KUMAR SINHA. (BOTH DAUGHTER OF BISHUNDEO PRASAD) ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-BASHDEOPUR, P.O. BASHDEOPUR, DISTRICT-MUNGER. ………OPPOSITE PARTIES-SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF. ----------- 3. 15.9.2010. Heard Mr. Shree Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Munsif-II, Munger, in Title Suit No.4 of 1994, whereby the prayer of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased-sole plaintiff has been allowed and they have been ordered to be substituted in place of the deceased plaintiff after rejecting the claim of the defendant- petitioner that the heirs and the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff do not have any right to proceed with the suit and get 2 the relief which was specific to the plaintiff on the basis of a deed of gift in her favour executed in the year 1961. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that had the impugned order been passed in favour of the defendant- petitioner, the suit would have abated and dismissed after the death of the sole plaintiff. Thus, the contention is that according to the newly substituted proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure brought by Section 12(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002, this Civil Revision would be maintainable. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and now, I proceed to consider this Civil Revision on its own merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim of the plaintiff as would be evident from the plaint, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-‘1’ to this Civil Revision, is based upon the alleged deed of gift executed in her favour by one Singheshwar Prasad and since the alleged deed of gift was claimed to be in favour of the plaintiff only, her heirs and legal representatives could not be allowed to prosecute the suit after his death. Thus, it should have been declared by the court below that the suit since has abated is not competent to 3 proceed. I do not find force in the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is evident from the plaint that the same has been brought for declaration of the plaintiff’s right, title and interest over the suit property which she claimed to have acquired by registered deed of gift dated 10.4.1961 executed by late Singheshwar Prasad. Thus, if the plaintiff’s case is to be accepted, then after her death her heirs and legal representatives will definitely enter into her shoes and would inherit the property concerned in accordance with law. Thus, in my opinion, no error has been committed by the court concerned in allowing a petition for the substitution filed by the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff. As a result, this Civil Revision, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 1994, it is expected from the trial court to take every steps for its expeditious disposal. P.S. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)