IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1223 of 1996 Ram Narayan Sonar alias Ram Narain Ram, son of Late Bira Sonar alias Mahabir Sonar, resident of Mohalla Sonartoli, Town Sasaram (Nawaratan Bazar), Police Station-Sasaram, District- Rohtas (Sasaram) ------- (Defendant-appellant)--- Appellant. Versus 1. Mostt. Keshari Kuer wife of Late Gauri Shankar Sonar. 2. Saraju Devi wife of Bishwarm Prasad, both residents of Mohalla Sonar Toli, Town Sasaram (Nawaratan Bazar) Police Station-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Sasaram). --- (Plaintiff-Respondents) --- Respondents. 3. Mostt. Pyari Devi wife of Late Gulab Sonar alias Mahabir Sonar. 4. Mostt. Kishori Devi wife of Late Bhola Seth. 5. Radha Devi wife of Uma Shankar Sonar and daughter of Late Gulab Sonar. 6.Rukmini Devi daughter of Late Gulab Sonar. 7. Mohan Sonar 8. Sohan Sonar 9. Jagadish Sonar, sons of Late Gulab Sonar, all resident of Mohalla Sonar Toli, Town Sasaram (Nawaratan Bazar), Police Station- Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Sasaram) ----- (Defendants-Respondents) – Respondents. 10. Dinesh Sonar son of Ram Narain Sonar. 11. Ramesh Sonar 12. Suresh Sonar, sons of Ram Narain Sonar. 13. Dina Nath Sonar, son of Satya Narain Sonar. 14. Munni Devi wife of Late Prasidh Narain Seth. 15. Mostt. Guljariya Devi wife of Late Satya Narain Sonar, all residents of Mohalla Sonartoli, Town Sasaram (Nawaratan Bazar), Police Station-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Sasaram) ----(Defendants- Respondents_ ---- respondents. ------------- 7. 20.8.2009 Heard Mr. Uma Shankar Singh No.II for the appellant. A co-defendant is the appellant against a judgment of affirmance, and arises out of a partition suit. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the appellant of F.A. No. 601 of 1973 (Ram Narain Sonar @ Ram Narayan Ram V. Mostt. Kershari Kuer and others), whereby the appeal preferred by him was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court 2 by judgment dated 23.9.1996. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein had instituted Title Suit No. 219 of 1967/ 61 of 1971, which was decreed by the learned 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, by judgment and decree dated 27.8.1973. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein, a co-defendant, preferred the said F.A. No. 601 of 1973, which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment. The learned trial court had formulated the following issues for adjudication: (1) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (2) Have the plaintiffs got any valid cause of action for the suit? (3) Is the suit barred by limitation? (4) Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for partition of the suit property to the extent of ¼ share? (5) To what other reliefs, if any are the plaintiffs entitled to? The defendants had entered appearance filed their written statements and contested the suit. On a consideration of the materials on record, the suit was decreed with costs against the contesting defendants and was decreed ex-parte against the rest. As stated hereinabove, the first appeal preferred by the present co-defendant (the appellant herein) has also been dismissed. Hence this appeal. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the learned Single Judge falls short of the requirements under Order 41, Rule 31, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “Order 41 Rule 31. Contents, date and signature of 3 judgment.- The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state- (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; © the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled; and shall at the time that it is pronounced be signed and dated by the Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.” He has also advanced elaborate submissions on issues of facts. Notices were issued to the respondents by various orders of this Court who have chosen not to appear in this Court to contest this appeal. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Before we proceed further, we would first of all like to deal with one issue the effect of non-substitution of some of the heirs. The appellant has filed I.A. No. 3902 of 2009, under the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was stated that respondent no.3, (Most. Pyari Devi), respondent no.4, (Most. Kishori Devi), and respondent no.15, (Most Guljariya Devi), have died and prayed for substitution of their heirs mentioned in this application. This application was rejected by order dated 19.8.2009, as a result of which the heirs of the deceased respondents are not on record. It arises out of a partition suit. The impugned judgment and decree has, therefore, become final in so far as the said respondents are concerned. The appeal as a whole has become infructuous and can not proceed 4 against the remaining parties which may result in inconsistent judgments and decrees. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not feel the necessity to discuss the remaining issues. The appeal is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) ( Jyoti Saran, J.)