Judgment : Asim Kumar Mondal, J. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20th March, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 86 of 2006. The petitioner being defendant No.1 in Title Suit No. 86 of 2006 has preferred the present revisional application challenging the order as aforesaid passed in favour of the opposite parties/ plaintiffs under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The opposite parties filed the suit for declaration, injunction and recovery of khas possession against the petitioners and the proforma opposite parties. The petitioner after entering appearance in the said suit is contesting the same by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained therein. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed an application under Order 22 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by expunging the name of the deceased plaintiff No. 1 namely Marium Bibi from the cause title of the instant suit. It was contended the said application that plaintiff No.1 Mst. Marium Bibi died unmarried and intestate on 18th February, 2011 at Uttar Pradesh. It was further contended in the said application that at the time of her death the deceased had left behind the legal heirs of her deceased sister namely Ayesha Khatoon as her legal heirs. It is further stated that the legal heirs of the deceased Mst. Marium Bibi are already on record as plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6. The petitioner contested the said application under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code by filing a written objection raising the question that plaintiffs have failed to produce either the death certificate of the plaintiff No.1 or any other supporting documents showing the death of the plaintiff No.1. The petitioner also raised objection that the plaintiff No.2 is not the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff No.1. The learned Trial Judge by an order dated march 20, 2012 was pleased to allow the petition under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on contest without cost. The petitioner also raised objection that the plaintiff No.2 is not the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff No.1. The learned Trial Judge by an order dated march 20, 2012 was pleased to allow the petition under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code on contest without cost. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated March 20, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 86 of 2006 has preferred the present revisional application on the grounds that the learned Trial Judge in exercise of its jurisdiction acted illegally and with material irregularity by allowing the petition under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil procedure Code in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein failed to produce either the death certificate or any document to prove the factum of the death of the plaintiff No.1. Further that the learned Trial Judge illegally and with material irregularity allowing the petition under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure without determining the question whether the plaintiff No.2 is not the legal representative of the plaintiff No.1. Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya with Mr. G.S. Gupta appeared on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.1. Mr. Bhattacharya referred the annexure ‘C’ at page 42 of the revisional application and submits that in the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order 22 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code there is no whisper as to the death certificate of the deceased Mst. Marium Bibi, allegedly who died unmarried and intestate on February 18, 2011 at Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Bhattacharya draws my attention at Annexure ‘D’ page 45 which is the written objection filed on behalf of the defendant No.1 Company against the application under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Court below and submits that the petitioner categorically raised objection in their written objection to the effect that the petitioner is barred by law of limitation. The application should not be allowed as prayer for expunging the name of the plaintiff No.1 as the plaintiffs failed to produce the death certificate of the plaintiff. Further it is submitted by Mr. The application should not be allowed as prayer for expunging the name of the plaintiff No.1 as the plaintiffs failed to produce the death certificate of the plaintiff. Further it is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that plaintiff No.2 is not the legal heirs of plaintiff No. 1 has falsely claimed by the plaintiffs so the question of causing entry to the plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 as the alleged legal heirs of the plaintiff No.1 does not arise. In reply Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya with Mr. Pranav Sharma and Mr. Supratim Laha for the opposite party Nos.1 to 5 submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. The legal heirs in view of the Mohammedan Law of succession are already on record. Thus opposite parties prayed for expunging the name of plaintiff No.1. The said petition was very much within time limit. Mr. Bhattacharya produce one photocopy of order dated August 6th, 2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah in Title suit No. 86 of 2006 and submits that on the very date of peremptory hearing of the suit the defendant who is the petitioner herein filed one application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for reconsideration/modification of the order impugned is granted of such prayer in the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was nothing new. The learned Court below accordingly after considering the submissions of both sides and also the order dated March 20th, 2012 was pleased to reject the said application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that there is no merit in the present revisional application and the same has been filed with intent to delay the proceeding of the suit and as such the revisional application should be dismissed. I have carefully perused the application that the photocopy of the application under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil procedure Code filed by the opposite parties/plaintiffs under Annexure ‘C’ and have also carefully perused the written objection filed on behalf of the defendant No.1 against the said application. Further I have carefully perused the photocopy produced by learned Counsel Mr. Bhattacharya containing the order dated August 6th, 2012 dismissing the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure filed by the present petitioners before the learned Court below. Further I have carefully perused the photocopy produced by learned Counsel Mr. Bhattacharya containing the order dated August 6th, 2012 dismissing the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure filed by the present petitioners before the learned Court below. It is true that in the impugned order there is no reflection as to the question raised by the petitioner regarding the death certificate of the deceased plaintiff No.1 Mst. Marium Bibi and as to the illegality and admissibility of the plaintiff No.2 as the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No.1. In the prayer portion of the application under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil procedure Code filed by the opposite parties/plaintiffs it appears that they have prayed for expunging the name of the deceased plaintiff No.1 Mst. Marium Bibi from the cause title on the ground that legal heirs of said deceased Marium Bibi are already on record as plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 in the petition under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil procedure Code the specific date of death of Marium Bibi has been mentioned as February 18, 2011 . The application under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code has been duly supported by affidavit. Under such circumstances, there is nothing to disbelief the factum of death of plaintiff No.1 Marium Bibi as the heirs are already on record. No question raised as to the status of the plaintiff Nos.3 to 6 as legal heirs of deceased plaintiff No.1 Mst. Marium Bibi. The question has raised that plaintiff No.2 is not the legal heir of plaintiff No.1. The fact remains that plaintiff No.2 is on record in the capacity of plaintiff. There is no suggestion on behalf of the petitioner as to who are other heirs remained to be included as plaintiffs category as the legal heirs of deceased Marium Bibi. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsels for the parties and also considering the certified copy of the order impugned as well as photocopy of order dated August 6th,2012 produced by Mr. Bhattacharya I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned wherein learned Court below allowed the petition under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil procedure Code by expunging the name of the plaintiff No.1. In the result the present revisional application is liable to be dismissed. Bhattacharya I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned wherein learned Court below allowed the petition under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Civil procedure Code by expunging the name of the plaintiff No.1. In the result the present revisional application is liable to be dismissed. Having no merit the revisional application is dismissed without cost. Order dated March 20th, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 86 of 2006 is hereby uninterfered. Stay if any granted by this Court stands vacated.