JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - Title Suit No. 11 of 1984 was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara for partition of the suit, property. Defendant No. 2 (Kelu Charan Jena) died during the trial of the suit. Preliminary decree in the suit was passed on 12-12-1984. On 5-7-1985 an application was made by the Plaintiff for final decree against the Defendants and In the said application, the Plaintiff brought the names of L.Rs. of Defendant No. 2 in place of Defendant No. 2 stating in the petition the Defendant No. 2 died on 15-1-1985. The lower Court record was called for and it is seen in the slid application that the date at death of Defendant No. 2 was shown as 15-3-1984 and was subsequently over-written showing 15-3-1985. The legal representatives of Defendant No. 2 who appeared after notice in the final decree proceeding made their objection that the suit had abated against Defendant No. 2, their father as Defendant No. 2 died on 4-3-1984 and they filed the original death certificate granted by the authorities under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The certificate issued by the Government of Orissa in the Department of Health and Family Welfare shows the date of death of Defendant No. 2 as 4-3-1984. This document, however, was issued on 3-10-1985. The contention of the legal representatives of Defendant No. 2 was that since the preliminary decree was passed against a dead person, the suit had abated against him and no effective judgment or decree could be passed for partition in respect of the other Defendants in view of such abetment. 2. The leaned counsel appearing for opposite parties in this case? Also does not dispute the proposition of law that in the event the date of death of Defendant No. 2 was prior to the date of preliminary decree, the suit abated against Defendant No. 2 and no effective decree could have been passed against the other Defendants. 3. The trial Court rejected the objection of legal representatives of Defendant No. 2 holding that in the present suit notice had been served on Defendant No. 2 but inspite of that notice, Defendant No. 2 failed to file his written statement. 3. The trial Court rejected the objection of legal representatives of Defendant No. 2 holding that in the present suit notice had been served on Defendant No. 2 but inspite of that notice, Defendant No. 2 failed to file his written statement. Since he failed to do so, the decree passed could not be declared to be a nullity in view of Order 22, Rule 4(4) of the CPC and further held that since the date of death of Defendant No. 1 was recorded in the Register of death and birth on the basis of an affidavit, that cannot carry higher provative value and cannot be accepted as conducive proof of the date of death. 4. Order 22, Rule 4(4) of the CPC reads as follows: The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the Plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such Defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said Defendant notwithstanding the death of such Defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place. In the present else the trial Court did not exempt the Plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of Defendant No. 2, the Plaintiff was accordingly not protected under Order 22, Rule 4(4) of the CPC and if the preliminary decree was passed against a Defendant who was already dead, it did not bind the said Defendant and the suit had abated against him. 5. Now the only question that remains to be decided if Defendant No. 2 had died before the preliminary decree was passed. In other words, whether as alleged by the L. Rs. of Defendant No. 2, the date of death was 4-3-1984 or it was actually 15-3-1985 as contended by the Plaintiff. Chapter-III of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 deals with registration of birth and death. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act requires a person to give information's regarding death or birth to the authorities within the time specified for necessary registration. Section 13 of the said Act deals with delayed registration. Section 13 reads as follows: 13. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act requires a person to give information's regarding death or birth to the authorities within the time specified for necessary registration. Section 13 of the said Act deals with delayed registration. Section 13 reads as follows: 13. Delayed registration of births and deaths: (1) Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefore, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed. (2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. (3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. (4) The provisions of this Section shall be without prejudice to any action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register any birth or death within the therefore and any such birth or death may be the pendency of any such action. It is clear from Sub-section (3) that any birth and death which was not registered within one year of the occurrence, may be registered only after an order passed by a Magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the date of birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee. The certificate which is filed in the Court shows that an application having been made before the lapse of one year from the date of death, registration was made by the proper authority in the Register of death. The law does not contemplate that any information that is supplied to the authorities regarding the date of birth and death will automatically find place in the register. The law does not contemplate that any information that is supplied to the authorities regarding the date of birth and death will automatically find place in the register. On the other hand, there must be proper verification about the correctness of the date of death and birth and only on payment of prescribed fee thereunder and on the order of the Magistrate, first class, or of the Presidency Magistrate as the case may be, such date shall be registered in the Register of death and birth. 1 he certificate which has been produced showing date of death of Defendant No. 2 is the extract of the prescribed particulars from the Register of birth and death. 6. Section 12 of the Act requires the authorities to give the extract of the registration entries to the informant. Section 12 reads as follows: The Register shall, as soon as the registration of birth or death has been completed give free of charge, to the person who gives information' u/s 8 or Section 9 an extract of the prescribed particulars under his hand from the register relating to such birth or death. Therefore, the extract statutorily made available to the informant of the registration entries carries presumption value of the correctness of the information which have been entered after due enquiry by a Magistrate, first class and should not have been thrown out from due consideration. When the L. Rs. of deceased had filed the certificate of death it should not have been ignored when no other evidence adduced by the Plaintiff were there to cast doubt on the date of death as shown in the certificate and particularly when in the application for final decree the Plaintiffs showed the date of death of Defendant No. 2 as 15-3-1984 but was over-written as 15-3-1985. The trial Court allowed the parties to lead evidence regarding the date of death of Defendant No. 2 to justify the entry made in the certificate filed by the L. Rs. of Defendant No. 2, but the enquiry conducted by the trial Court in this regard is far from satisfactory. Since the date of death is very vital for the fate of the suit an enquiry should have been made more elaborately and satisfactorily. of Defendant No. 2, but the enquiry conducted by the trial Court in this regard is far from satisfactory. Since the date of death is very vital for the fate of the suit an enquiry should have been made more elaborately and satisfactorily. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside and the case is remitted back to the trial Court who by hearing both the parties and taking evidence adduced by the parties relating to the date of death of Defendant No. 2 will decide as to whether the preliminary decree already passed will be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Civil Revision is allowed and in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. The lower Court record be returned back to the Court below forthwith. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed