JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. This revisional application is directed against the order of the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Serampore in connection with Order No. 40 dated 30.03.2015 by which the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, has dismissed the judgment passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Fast Track Court, at Serampore. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned order of the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, the present petitioner has come before this forum with a prayer to set aside the impugned order of the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court at Serampore. According to him, Learned First Appellate Court totally ignored the factual and legal aspects that on the death of the sole petitioner in the Learned Court below, the power of attorney holder has become ceased and that he had no right to proceed with the said matter. Besides, that the appeal was preferred on behalf on a dead person which is not at all maintainable because before preferring the appeal original petitioner Ayesa Khatoon died, who had allegedly executed a power of attorney in favour of one Kazi Abdul Gaffar. This apart, he contended that without disposal of the substitution application, the entire proceeding before the Learned First Appellate Court is absolutely illegal. 3. Ventilating his such grievances he has prayed for setting aside the order of the Learned First Appellate Court. From the submission of the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner it appears that there was a technical mistake on the part of the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, First Court, at Serampore that without disposal of the substitution petition the said Court proceeded with the case and as a result the order was passed against a dead person. 4. In the interest of effective adjudication facts of the case is required to be restated. According to the petitioner before the Learned Court below she had executed a power of attorney in favour of Kazi Abdul Gaffar claiming that she is the co-sharer in respect of the suit property and that the proforma opposite parties without serving any notice to the petitioner had sold the property to the opposite party, who is a stranger to the suit property. According to him, the petitioner derived the knowledge of such transfer when the proforma opposite party filed a written statement in connection with the suit filed by the petitioner. On the basis of her such knowledge she had filed the case under Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act. 5. The Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division has mainly discussed about the legal position of Limitation Act in her own way and had come to the conclusion that the case was barred by limitation and accordingly she had rejected the claim of the petitioner. Appeal was preferred against the said judgment of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, First Court and this time the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court contended that while the case was pending before the Learned Court below said Ayesa Khatoon died and a substitution application was filed by the constituted attorney of the petitioner on 30.11.2008. But without disposing of the said application pending before the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, that Court had taken evidence of both sides and thereafter passed a judgment against a dead person which is absolutely illegal. As against this Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has submitted that it was the duty of the constituted attorney to draw the attention of the Learned Court below and since that has not been done so she is estopped from raising the issue. 6. After going through, the materials on records and after hearing the rival contention of the parties, I am of the view that it was the duty of the Learned Court below to dispose of the substitution petition first and thereafter to proceed with the case. Because after the death of the petitioner Ayesa Khatoon, a substitution application was filed. Yet the Learned Court below proceeded to hear the matter which is absolutely illegal. Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, quite rightly held that the judgment passed by the Leaned Civil Judge, Junior Division, had no leg to stand. Learned First Appellate Court further held that evidence taken at that stage got no value in the eyes of law and any decree or order passed at the relevant point of time against a dead person is a nullity. 7. Learned First Appellate Court further held that evidence taken at that stage got no value in the eyes of law and any decree or order passed at the relevant point of time against a dead person is a nullity. 7. On perusal of the judgment of the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, I find that the said Court has confined itself in assessing the scope and ambit of Limitation Act in a preemption suit. But the said Court did not consider the cosharership as alleged by the petitioner before it. 8. Be that as it may, since the order was passed against a dead person and that too while an application for substitution was pending before the Learned Court below is a nullity and as a result it must be rejected. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Learned First Appellate Court and quite rightly it was sent back on remand. 9. In the result, the revisional application stands dismissed but without cost. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merit of the case nor the finding of the Learned Court below so far as limitation point is concerned. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, First Court, at Serampore is directed to dispose of the substitution application dated 30.11.2008 and if the said petition is allowed in that case the Court will give an opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence, if any, and thereafter the Learned Court below will pass the judgment afresh without being guided or influenced by any of the observation made above. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Learned Courts below for information and taking necessary action in accordance with law. 11. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.