JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Revisional application Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order being No.49 dated June 20, 2016 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court at Barasat in Title Suit No.151 of 2009. 2. The petitioners case to put in brief is that the suit property originally belonged to late Binoy Gopal Sen and after his death the petitioners became the joint owners of the suit property. Late Sachindranath Gupta, predecessor in interest of the opposite parties was inducted as tenant in the ground floor of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.600/- hundred per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.700/- per month. After the death of said Sachindra Nath Gupta the Opposite Parties being the heirs and legal representatives became irregular in payment of rent and became defaulter since August 2007. The suit property is reasonably required by the petitioners for their own use and occupation. Hence the suit being Title Suit No.151 of 2016 is filed before the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2nd Court at Barasat against the opposite parties. 3. The original defendant No.1 late Gita Gupta, being the predecessor in interest of the opposite party No.1 Sanghamitra Banerjee and Opposite Party No.2 Suchendra Gupta Sur and opposite party No.3 Soumitra Gupta being the defendants contested the suit by filling written statement. 4. During the pendency of the suit original defendant No.1 died living behind her two sons opposite party Nos.3 and 4. A substitution application was filed and the same was allowed. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were already on record and therefore opposite party Nos. 1, 2 were brought on record in place and stead of original defendant No.1. On July 3, 2014 the registered summon upon opposite party No.4 came back with an endorsement deceased dated July 3, 2014 and such information was filed before the Learned court below. 5. On December 1, 2015 the petitioners filed an application for deleting the name of the opposite party No.4 as his legal heirs and representatives were already on record being opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 6. 5. On December 1, 2015 the petitioners filed an application for deleting the name of the opposite party No.4 as his legal heirs and representatives were already on record being opposite Party Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 6. Subsequently the petitioners filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that opposite party No.4 being dead and the opposite party No.3 though alleged that the opposite Party No.4 had a son but failed to disclose his name and since the Opposite Party No.4 was not contesting the suit by filing the written statement therefore, the petitioners prayed for exemption from substituting the name of the heirs of the deceased Opposite Party No.4. 7. The Learned Judge by order No.49 dated June 20, 2016 rejected the said application inter alia holding that since by Order 46 dated 27th January, 2016 an Order of abatement have been passed against the deceased Opposite Party No.4 therefore, the Learned court below has no power and jurisdiction to entertain the said application. 8. Hence the instant revisional application is filed. 9. The Learned counsel representing the plaintiff/petitioner contended that as per amended provision of Order XXII Rule 4 (4) the Learned court below is empowered to exempt the petitioners at any stage from substituting the legal heirs of the deceased opposite party No.4 who did not contest this suit and failed to file written statement. As such even after and order of abatement, which is an automatic process, the Learned court below can invoke the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. In support of his contention the learned counsel cited two decisions reported in 97 CWN page 636 (Division Bench) and No.2 (2009) 14 SCC page 294. 11. Now, Order XXII Rule 4 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure runs thus: “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. 12. 12. Now, in the decision reported in CWN 97 page 636 a Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta held as follows:- 13. Held in Para 5 that as regards the second part of the impugned order, we are required to consider the effect of the amended provision of Order XXII Rule 4 Sub-rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the amendment no change was effected, in substance, to the provisions of Rules 1, 2, 3, 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since the change was with regard to order 22 Rule 4 (4), it is worthwhile to quote the previous rule and indicate the changes which have been introduced therein by the amendment of 1976, amendment order XXII Rule 4 (4) read as follows: “The Court, whenever it sees fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file la written statement or 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. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 4 ended with the following “except as provided in sub-rule 4 below”. The Division Bench held in the case of Nanigopal Vs. Panchanan reported in 59 CWN 304, following the Single Bench decision in the case of Sankari Prasad Vs. Kanailal reported in 52 CWN 599, that the order 22 Rule 4(4) was one of the exceptions as mentioned in the Order XXII Rule 4 (3) stated hereinabove and on such basis laid down that no application under Order 22 Rule4 (4) would be entertained after abatement had taken place. The amendment of Civil Procedure Code, 1976 while engrafting substantially the provision of Order XXII Sub-rule 4 (3) and (4) as existing prior to amendment made two changes i) by deleting the last part “except as hereinafter provided” and ii) by substituting the underlined word ‘sees ‘by’ the word ‘thinks’. The legislature is presumed to know the law. The amendment of Civil Procedure Code, 1976 while engrafting substantially the provision of Order XXII Sub-rule 4 (3) and (4) as existing prior to amendment made two changes i) by deleting the last part “except as hereinafter provided” and ii) by substituting the underlined word ‘sees ‘by’ the word ‘thinks’. The legislature is presumed to know the law. Therefore, the ratio of the division bench decision can be presumed to have been known to it but notwithstanding such knowledge there was no inclusion of any period of limitation in the provision of Order XXII Rule 4(4) as it stands now. Secondly, the deletion of a part of Sub-rule 3 above clearly signifies the legislative intent of doing away with the ratio of the Calcutta division bench that the right to pray for exemption in terms of Order XXII Rule 4 (4) as it was adopted by the Calcutta High Court should be asserted before allotment occurred the consequence of the aforesaid conclusions is that the present provision of Order XXII Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been deliberately made an independent provision as distinct from one previously operating as an exception only. There is another reason, which justifies the above conclusion of ours, and that is the provision of Section 97 (2) ® of the the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, which envisages that the amended provision shall not apply to any order of abatement recorded before the substitution of the new Order XXII Rule 4. In other words, Order XXII rule 4 (4) as amended would be available, notwithstanding abetment which is an automatic process not dependent on any order of the Court till an order of abatement has been recorded. Such new concept is incompatible with the ratio of the Calcutta Division bench and the application for exemption can be made even after abatement has taken place. Taking into consideration the aforesaid position, we are of the view that the ratio propounded by the earlier Division Bench of this Court has been given a go by and can no longer be held to be binding. Division Bench of this Court has been given a go by.” 14. Taking into consideration the aforesaid position, we are of the view that the ratio propounded by the earlier Division Bench of this Court has been given a go by and can no longer be held to be binding. Division Bench of this Court has been given a go by.” 14. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the provision made under Order 22 Rule 4 (4) of Civil Procedure Code and also in view of the decision cited above, the present civil revision is allowed. The impugned order being No.49 dated June 20, 2016 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 2nd Court at Barasat in title suit No.151 of 2009 stands set aside. The court below is directed to dispose of the case pending before the Learned trial court preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order to the concerned Court. 15. There will be no order as to costs. 16. Urgent Photostat copies be delivered to the Learned Advocates for the parties on compliance of requisite formalities.