AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is submitted that the T.S. No. 158/84 was filed for declaration for injunction by the revisionist plaintiff before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Asansol. The said suit came to be renumbered as T.S. 109/87 in the year 1987.
 The first proforma defendant in the suit had filed written statement and was contesting the same. The decree was passed in the suit on 20.08.1987.
The said decree is stated to have been carried in appeal in T.A. No. 87/87.
 In the meantime, on 20.08.1989, the proforma defendant No. 1 is stated to have died. The plaintiff decree holder had not impleaded the legal heirs in
the execution proceedings nor has sought amendment of the decree thereupon.
 It is submitted that the T.A. No. 87/1987 subsequently renumbered as T.A. 22/2001 set aside the said decree and remanded the matter back to the
learned trial court.
 In the year 2016, the decree holder made an application for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased proforma defendant No. 1 in the said T.S.
No. 109/87. The said suit was held to have abated against the said proforma defendant No. 1 in the year 1989 itself and the application of the
Revisionist was dismissed.
The revisionist thereafter made application under Order XXII Rule 4 Sub-rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure asking for being exempted from
substituting the legal heirs of the said proforma defendant No. 1 which was rejected by the Court below on 12.12.17. The revisionist is aggrieved by
such order.
It is abundantly clear that the substitution application having been rejected in the year 2016 in view of the abatement of the suit against the first
proforma defendant in the year 1989, the question of entertaining any application for exemption under Sub-rule 4 of Rule 4 Order XXII of the Code of
Civil Procedure cannot arise.
This court finds that the application for substitution in the year 2016 and under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a belated attempt
by the plaintiff to overcome the consequences of abatement of the decree against the original defendant. The time limit for execution of the decree
may have also expired.
The revisionist relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Gnanavel vs. T. S. Kanagaraj reported in AIR 2009 Supreme
Court 2367 particularly paragraphs 11 and 14 thereof. This court finds that the interpretation of this court is in harmony with the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove.
Hence, I do not find any infirmity with the order impugned.
With the above observations, the instant civil revisional application stands dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary
formalities.