IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.380 of 2000 ADYA PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus BHAGWAN SINGH & ORS ----------- 30. 12.5.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. It is really unfortunate that the basic principle of substitution and abatement is not only being ignored rather is also being applied by the courts below in general by a rule of thumb. It is neither the law nor requirement of the Code of Civil Procedure that the moment a party, the plaintiff or defendant, would die the suit must abate. In the present case one of the three arbitrators against whom the relief was sought for filing the award in the court for its being made rule of the court had died. The two arbitrators were still alive and therefore, the deceased arbitrator working in his official or personal capacity was not required to be substituted even after his death. The arbitration proceeding was conducted by three of them and even one of them being alive the case for making their award rule of the Court could have been very well continued. 2 That being so, this Court would find that the impugned order dated 18.4.2000 in Misc. Case No. 31/1999 is absolutely perverse and illegal and is, accordingly, set aside. The original Title Suit No. 7/1994 would stand revived and restored and the concerned court must take all possible efforts to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Counsel for the respondents in fact would submit that somehow the original Title Suit No. 2/1994 has also met the same fate on account of non-substitution of one of the three arbitrators who is said to have died during the pendency of the suit. This Court, being not in seisin with the aforementioned matter or order arising out of dismissal of the title suit no. 2/1994 on account of its abatement, would not be in a position to make any final verdict but if it is correct that the aforesaid suit has also been held to have abated on the ground of the death of one of the three arbitrators, the court below will apply the same principle which has been 3 applied in this case and reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this appeal to the extent indicated above is allowed. There would be however no order as to cost. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/