IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1636 of 2003 MOST.BELA RANI GHOSH & ORS Versus SRI BUBU COOMAR @ SHYAMALI COOMAR ----------- 22. 14.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. No one appears for the opposite parties in spite of several repeated notices sent and duly served upon them. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners challenging order dated 25.08.2003 by which the learned District Judge, Madhepura, dismissed their Misc. Appeal No.10 of 2001 as not maintainable. The said miscellaneous appeal was filed against order dated 04.09.2001 passed in Title Suit No.04 of 1972(12 of 1974) by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Madhepura, held that the suit has abated as against defendant no.2 and that petition filed by the plaintiffs for exempting the plaintiffs from substituting the heirs of deceased defendant no.2 was rejected. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs as far back as in the year 1972 claiming for declaration of their title as absolute owner and for permanent injunction and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the said suit continued and pleadings were completed, issues were framed and evidences of the parties were led. It further transpires that in the meantime defendant no.2 Upanand Kumar died and defendant filed a petition in the court below that the entire suit had abated. On - 2 - the other hand, the plaintiffs filed a petition for expunction of name of defendant no.2 as he was mere purchaser from defendant no.1 during the pendency of the suit and had already relinquished his share in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned court below passed the impugned order holding that the suit abated against defendant no.2 and hence, defendant’s petition regarding abatement of the suit was allowed. It is quite strange to note here that in the same paragraph of the impugned order, the learned court below also allowed the petition of the plaintiffs for expunction of the name of defendant no.2. Both parts of the said impugned order of the learned trial court dated 04.09.2001 are self-contradictory as if the petition of the plaintiffs for expunction of the name of defendant no.2 was allowed specially when the plaintiffs had clearly stated that he was not a necessary party to the suit because he was merely a purchaser from defendant no.1 during the pendency of the suit having relinquished his right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiffs, then he had no occasion for passing any order of abatement of the suit as claimed by the defendant. In the said circumstances, that part of the order of learned court below is set aside by which the suit was directed to have abated. Since the learned trial court has itself expunged the name of defendant no.2 in the suit and rightly so, the suit shall continue against the remaining defendants. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this civil - 3 - revision is allowed with a direction to the learned court below to expedite the disposal of Title Suit No. 04 of 1972(12 of 1974) preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)