ORDER 09.01.2007 — Heard 2. The petitioners are plaintiffs in T.S. No.267 of 1998 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nimapara. The said suit was one for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession, in the alternative for recovery of possession from the defendants in respect of Ac.1.75 decimals of agricultural land more fully described in Schedule-A to the plaint. 3. After receiving notice the defendants appeared. During pedency of the suit it came to the notice of the plaintiffs that one of the defendants being defendant No.2, had expired. A peti¬tion was filed under Order 22, Rule 4 of C.P.C. along with one petition under Order 22 Rule 9 of C.P.C. and another under Sec¬tion 5 of the Limitation Act, on 26.3.2003. It is pertinent to mention here that defendant No.2 died on 24.8.2002. The said petitions, as it appears from the order sheet, were dismissed on 04.8.2003. Thereafter another set of petitions were filed - one under Order 22, Rule 4 of C.P.C. for substitution, one under Order 22, Rule 9 of C.P.C. for setting aside abatement and another under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. All the aforesaid petitions were resisted by the defen¬dants-opposite parties. The learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 16.1.2004, rejected the three petitions mainly on the ground that earlier petitions filed for the self-same relief having been rejected, subsequent petitions for the same relief were not maintainable. The trial Court further held that the delay in filing the petition for substitution had not been prop¬erly explained. Being aggrieved by the said decision the plain¬tiffs have approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners humbly submits that the Court while dealing with substitution matter should not act hyper-technically. The Court should always be liberal in allowing a petition filed for substitution. It is submitted that the suit is still pending. Trial has not commenced and no prejudice what¬soever shall be caused to any of the parties,if prayer for substi¬tution is allowed. According to learned counsel, defendant No.2 resides at a different village. All of them are Scheduled Caste persons and belong to lower strata of the society. It is submitted that the suit is still pending. Trial has not commenced and no prejudice what¬soever shall be caused to any of the parties,if prayer for substi¬tution is allowed. According to learned counsel, defendant No.2 resides at a different village. All of them are Scheduled Caste persons and belong to lower strata of the society. Only when their advocate intimated them that the suit was ready for trial, they informed their advocate about the death of defendant No.2 and hastily petitions were drafted and filed.It is further sub¬mitted that as the petitions contained several inadvertent mis¬takes, the same were not pressed and were accordingly dismissed and thereafter better petitions were filed. 5. It is stated that the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in rejecting the petitions on the ground that the earlier petitions filed were dismissed and that the delay had not been properly explained. According to learned counsel for the petitioners it is a fit case where the ends of justice would be better served if the petition for sub¬stitution is allowed, the delay is condoned and the order of abatement is set aside, and the suit is heard on merit. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-defendants on the other hand vehemently opposed the submissions made. It is submitted that the earlier petitions filed under Order 22, Rule 4 of C.P.C., under Order 22, Rule 9 of C.P.C., and Section 5 of the Limitation Act having been dismissed, subsequent petitions seek¬ing self-same reliefs cannot be entertained. In support of such submission he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court, re¬ported in AIR 1960 SC 941 in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal & others v. Smt. Deorajin Debi & another. In the said decision the Supreme Court held that the principles of res judicata is based on the need of giving finality to the judicial decisions. And as such in consonance with the provisions of Section 11 of C.P.C. dismissal of interlocutory petition shall also stand as res judicata to subsequent petitions filed. 7. It is further submitted that the parties belong to the near about villages situated under the same P.S. and the plain¬tiffs having totally failed to explain the delay caused, the decision suffers from no infirmity and may not be interfered with. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Pe¬rused the materials available on record. 7. It is further submitted that the parties belong to the near about villages situated under the same P.S. and the plain¬tiffs having totally failed to explain the delay caused, the decision suffers from no infirmity and may not be interfered with. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Pe¬rused the materials available on record. T.S. No.267 of 1998 is sub judice for last eight years. Trial of the suit has not com¬menced as yet. The learned counsel for the parties are not in a position to apprise the Court as to whether written statement has been filed or not. Fact remains, defendant No.2 having expired since 24.8.2002, a set of petitions for substitution, setting aside abatement and condonation of delay were filed on 18.11.2003. The said petitions according to the petitioners were dismissed as not pressed, as the same contained several inadver¬tent mistakes. Thereafter fresh set of petitions were filed. The only question which needs to be considered in this case is as to whether second set of petitions filed can be entertained or the same shall be hit by the principles of res judicata. In a recent decision in the case of K. Rudrappa v. Shivappa, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4346, a similar matter came for consideration. The Su¬preme Court in the said decision has clearly held referring to an earlier decision reported in AIR 2004 SCW 4607 that while dealing with such applications the Court should not take hyper¬technical view and should liberally consider the petitions. 9. Even otherwise the aims and objectives of a Court is to finally adjudicate and put an end to a litigation. Endeavour should always be made by the Court to finally adjudicate and decide the case for all times to come. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law and in consonance with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court supra this Court feels that to avoid further multiplicity of litigations and to meet ends of justice it is a fit case where prayer for substitution, setting aside abatement and condonation of delay should be allowed, and directs accordingly. Consequently the delay is condoned, the petition for setting aside abatement and substitution of defen¬dant No.2 are allowed and the legal heirs of defendant No.2 are directed to be impleaded as defendants in the suit subject to payment of cost Rs.1,000/- to the defendants within a period of three weeks hence which shall mitigate the prejudice caused to them. With the aforesaid observation the Writ Petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.