JUDGMENT : Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 08 of 2006 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6lh Court, Alipore, South-24-Parganas by which the learned Trial Judge allowed the present opposite party/mother Smt. Bakul Roy to be substituted in place of her son, the deceased plaintiff Samar Kumar Roy. 2. A brief resume of the relevant facts is that the plaintiff Samar Kumar Roy instituted the aforesaid suit for a decree of declaration that the defendant Smt Jharna Bera (petitioner herein) is not his legally married wife and that she has no right to claim the plaintiff as her husband inasmuch as the alleged marriages between the plaintiff and the defendant are not legal, valid and tenable in law, for injunction and for other reliefs. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the father of the defendant was a senior employee and he was a junior employee under the Directorate of Employment Exchange, Government of West Bengal. The father of the defendant taking that advantage prevailed undue influence upon the plaintiff and by blackmailing and coercion arranged a show of marriage of his daughter Jharna Bera with the plaintiff by registration. The alleged show of marriage was held on 18.02.2002 followed by marriage at Kalighat on 13.12.2002 to give social recognition. It has been alleged that neither of the so-called marriages was solemnized according to the provision of the Special Marriage Act nor by performing essential ceremonies of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such the said marriages are not tenable and valid in law. It has further been alleged that there was no consummation of the said show of marriage. 4. During pendency of the suit the plaintiff Samar Kumar Roy died on 10.10.2012. On 19.12.2012 Smt. Bakul Roy, mother and legal heir of the deceased plaintiff filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for substitution which was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the petitioner/wife has preferred the instant revision. 5. Mr. On 19.12.2012 Smt. Bakul Roy, mother and legal heir of the deceased plaintiff filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for substitution which was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such order the petitioner/wife has preferred the instant revision. 5. Mr. Uttam Kumar Bhatacharya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that there was valid marriage between the plaintiff (since deceased) and the defendant and the marriage was registered under the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 and Certificate of Marriage was issued (vide Annexure-P/7 at Page 48 of the Revisional Application) and subsequently social marriage was held observing all the ceremonies and they lived together as husband and wife for a long period. Thereafter the plaintiff filed this suit for a decree of nullity of the marriage on some false grounds. He further submitted that during pendency of the suit the wife (petitioner herein) filed a proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the husband (plaintiff, since deceased) and that case was disposed of on compromise and the husband was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the wife. On this factual background Mr. Bhattacharya argued that since the suit brought by the deceased plaintiff was for a decree of nullity of marriage and the cause of action was purely personal, the right to sue had not survived to his mother who is a third party to the marriage and the suit had stood abated on the death of the plaintiff. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order is absolutely illegal and is liable to be set aside. He relied on a decision reported in 96 CWN 133 (Balai Chand Paul & Ors.) in order to substantiate his contention. 6. Mr. Sourav Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party, on the other hand submitted that there was no legal and valid marriage between the parties and there was only show of marriages by registration and at Kalighat by exercising undue influence and coercion by the father of the defendant upon the plaintiff and also by blackmailing him. Thats why the plaintiff had filed the suit justifiably for a decree of nullity of the marriage. Thats why the plaintiff had filed the suit justifiably for a decree of nullity of the marriage. He contended that since there was no valid marriage between the parties, mere registration of such show of marriage or mere issuance of Certificate of Registration would not validate an invalid marriage. Mr. Sen contended further that since the suit was filed for declaration of nullity of marriage by her son, the mother is entitled to continue with the suit-being substituted in place of the deceased plaintiff as she is his class-I heir. Moreover, her right to the property or estate of the deceased and her own status are affected or likely to be affected by the purported marriage. So she can proceed with the suit for obtaining a declaration that the marriage is null and void so that by such declaration her own civil right regarding property or status is vindicated and protected. Therefore, according to him, the learned Trial Judge has rightly allowed the mother of the deceased plaintiff to be substituted in his place by passing the impugned order which should not be interfered with. He cited the decisions reported in AIR 1996 SC 1092 (Puran Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.), AIR 1997 SC 35 (Smt. Yallawwa v. Smt. Shantavva), AIR 1975 Cal 6 (Smt. Lagna Bhattacharjee v. Shyamal Bhattacharjee) and 2012 (5) CHN 699 (Sabitri Rana v. Mousumi Pramanik) in support of his contention. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the decisions cited by them. I have also gone through the entire proceedings with meticulous care. 8. Having regard to the rival submission and contention advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties in the light of the decisions placed by them, the only question which fails for consideration is :- "Whether in a suit for annulment of marriage by a decree of nullity, on the death of a spouse the right to sue would survive to a third person like the mother of that spouse." 9. "Right to sue" means the right to bring a suit asserting a right to the same relief which the deceased/plaintiff asserted at the time of his death. "Right to sue" means the right to bring a suit asserting a right to the same relief which the deceased/plaintiff asserted at the time of his death. The cause of action in the original and revived suit must be the same and no fresh cause of action can be imported into the revived suit. As to cases in which right to sue survives relevant provisions are to be found in Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, which embodies the cases where due to the nature of some right which are personal and cannot bring any relief to the surviving legal heirs, the suit is not liable to be continued by the legal heirs on the death of the original applicant/plaintiff. The rights intimately connected with the individuality of the deceased will not survive. This principle is based on the famous maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona" which means a personal right of action dies with the person. 10. Looking into the plaint it appears that the deceased/plaintiff had challenged the validity of the marriage on two grounds - namely that a show of the marriage was arranged by registration by exercising undue influence, coercion and blackmail upon him by the father of the defendant and that there was no consummation of the said show of marriage. Since the marriage was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 the question of validity of the marriage shall have to be tested on the anvil of the provisions of the said Act. Under the said Act neither of the aforesaid two- grounds e.g. obtaining of consent of a party to the marriage by coercion or fraud and non-consummation of the marriage makes the marriage void ab initio (vide Section 24). Section 25 of the Act which specifies the grounds on which a marriage becomes voidable reads as follows:- "25. Under the said Act neither of the aforesaid two- grounds e.g. obtaining of consent of a party to the marriage by coercion or fraud and non-consummation of the marriage makes the marriage void ab initio (vide Section 24). Section 25 of the Act which specifies the grounds on which a marriage becomes voidable reads as follows:- "25. Voidable marriages.-Any marriage solemnized under this Act shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity if,- (i) the marriage has not been consummated owing to the wilful refusal of the respondent to consummate the marriage; or (ii) the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner; or (iii) the consent of either party to the marriage was obtained by coercion or fraud, as defined in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872): Provided that, in the case specified in clause (ii), the court shall not grant a decree unless it is satisfied,- (a) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged; (b) that proceedings were instituted within a year from the date of the marriage; and (c) that marital intercourse with the consent of the petitioner has not taken place since the discovery by the petitioner of the existence of the grounds for a decree." 11. That apart, the Marriage Certificate (Annexure P-7 to the Revisional Application at Page 48) was purporting issued under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the said Act runs thus :- "(2) On a certificate being entered in the Marriage Certificate Book by the Marriage Officer, the Certificate shall be deemed to be conclusive evidence of the fact that a marriage under this Act has been solemnized and that all formalities respecting the signatures of witnesses have been complied with." 12. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that on a marriage under the Act has been solemnized and the Marriage Certificate shall be deemed to be conclusive evidence of such factum of marriage. 13. The Madras High Court in the case of T. Rangaswami v. Aravindammal reported in AIR 1957 Mad 243 held as under :- "While in the case of a void marriage the decree merely 'declares status, in the case of a voidable marriage the decree changes status. 13. The Madras High Court in the case of T. Rangaswami v. Aravindammal reported in AIR 1957 Mad 243 held as under :- "While in the case of a void marriage the decree merely 'declares status, in the case of a voidable marriage the decree changes status. The children of a void marriage for instance unless saved by Legislature (e.g. Section 26, Special Marriage Act, 1954) are never legitimate (Jackson Ibid 61). But there is the further distinction between void and voidable marriages in that in the case of a voidable marriage till it is annulled by a decree parties are husband and wife and children begotten of such marriages are legitimate and secondly whereas in the case of a voidable marriage it can be avoided only on a presentation of a petition by either party thereto, a marriage which is null and void may be declared to be so even at the instance of a stranger whose interest are affected by such a marriage." 14. In this context I think it relevant and appropriate to quote the observation made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Ram Pyari v. Dharam Das & Ors., ( AIR 1984 All 147 ) which is as follows:- "11................................................ There is a distinction between a void and voidable marriage. A void marriage is one which is regarded as non-existent or as never having taken place. It could be so treated by both the parties to it without the existence of any decree annulling the said marriage. A marriage is void where there is bigamy, consanguinity or within the degrees of prohibited relationship. In these cases the Court will regard the marriage as never having taken place and no status of matrimony as ever having been conferred. Consequently, the parties never having been husband and wife, either is competent to be called against the other. Consent of the parties performing the marriage in breach of clause (i) of Section 5 cannot validate it. Such is not the position in case of a voidable marriage. A voidable marriage is regarded as valid and subsisting unless a competent Court annuls it. Until the decree of nullity is obtained in accordance with Hindu Marriage Act, the tie remains binding. Such is not the position in case of a voidable marriage. A voidable marriage is regarded as valid and subsisting unless a competent Court annuls it. Until the decree of nullity is obtained in accordance with Hindu Marriage Act, the tie remains binding. So long as there is no decree they will live and die as married persons with all the incidents that attach to that estate. The expression void means null, ineffectual having no force or binding effect. Since a marriage performed in contravention of clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 is void, it is incapable of being cured or ratified. 12. Precisely for the above reason that it has been recognised by the Courts that a third party can bring a suit in a Civil Court for its annulment even after their deaths. If this is not held the rights of the third party would be seriously prejudiced without having any right in them to seek redress in a Court of law. The case of a voidable marriage as stated above, stands on a different footing. The right given to annulment of marriage is confined to the parties." 15. From the totality of facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the aforesaid exposition of law it becomes crystal clear that the proceeding being Title Suit No. 08 of 2006 instituted by the deceased plaintiff Samar Kumar Roy was purely based on personal cause of action which stood abated on his death and the right to sue would not survive to his mother Smt. Bakul Roy (O.P. herein). Thus the question posed above is answered accordingly in the negative. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Revisional Application being C.O. No. 3409 of 2013 is allowed and the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6lh Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 08 of 2006 stands set aside. 17. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.