JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed in Revision Case No. 52/2003 whereby the respondent No.2 has recalled the earlier order dated 27.07.2018 and allowed the substitution petition filed by the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b), who happen to be the legal heirs of the original respondent No.5 (since deceased). 2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the land appertaining to Khata No. 22, Plot No. 340, Village-Pindarkom, P.S-Hatia, District-Ranchi, measuring an area of 1.15 Acres was recorded in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights as raiyati land jointly in the name of the petitioner’s ancestors and the respondent Nos. 6 to 21. The respondent Nos. 6 to 12 sold a portion of the said land admeasuring 23 Decimals to the father (Late Md. Israfil) of the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) by virtue of registered sale deed No. 8734 dated 7.8.2001. The petitioner and his brothers, having come to know about the said transfer, filed an application being Pre-emption Case No. 19/2001-02 under Section 16(3)(i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’] against Md. Israfil and the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 before the respondent No.4 on 6.11.2001 claiming re-conveyance of the land in their favour on the ground that they were co-heirs as well as adjoining raiyats whereas the respondent No.5 was neither a co-sharer nor an adjoining raiyat of the same. The father of the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) and the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 filed show cause affidavit in the aforesaid case contesting the claim of the applicants on the ground that the said land was not in the joint possession of the applicants as well as the opposite parties of the said case (the father of the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) along with the respondent Nos. 6 to 12), rather the same was partitioned. The respondent No.4, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, allowed the said pre-emption application vide order dated 30.01.2003. Aggrieved thereby, Md. Israfil and the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 filed Misc. Appeal Case No. 5R 15/02-03 before the respondent No.3 which was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2003 affirming the said order of the respondent No.4. Thereafter, Md. The respondent No.4, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, allowed the said pre-emption application vide order dated 30.01.2003. Aggrieved thereby, Md. Israfil and the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 filed Misc. Appeal Case No. 5R 15/02-03 before the respondent No.3 which was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2003 affirming the said order of the respondent No.4. Thereafter, Md. Israfil and the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 filed Revision Case No. 52 of 2003 before the respondent No.2 which was allowed vide order dated 01.02.2007 setting aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 on the ground that the application filed by the applicants under Section 16(3)(i) of the Act, 1961 itself was defective for non-compliance of Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1963’]. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 19 to 21 filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2770 of 2007 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 29/01/2018 remanding the matter to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after hearing the parties by observing that admittedly, on the date of passing of the order dated 01.02.2007 by the respondent No.2, the purchaser of the said property i.e. the father of the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) as well as one of the sellers of the said property i.e. the father of the respondent Nos. 8(a) to 8(c) were dead and thus in that view of the matter, the order dated 01.02.2007 passed by the respondent No.2 not being sustainable in the eyes of law was set aside. Moreover, the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) were directed to file a substitution petition in the Court below within a period of two months from the date of passing of the said order. The order dated 29.01.2018 was communicated to the respondent No.2 and the notices were also issued to the petitioner as well as the respondents including the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b). The petitioner appeared in the Court of the respondent No.2 after receiving notice dated 11.04.2018 in Revision Case No. 52 of 2003, however, the respondent Nos. 5 to 12 neither appeared and nor filed any substitution petition. Finally, on 27.07.2018, the respondent No.2 came to the conclusion that since no substitution petition was filed by two sons of Late Md. The petitioner appeared in the Court of the respondent No.2 after receiving notice dated 11.04.2018 in Revision Case No. 52 of 2003, however, the respondent Nos. 5 to 12 neither appeared and nor filed any substitution petition. Finally, on 27.07.2018, the respondent No.2 came to the conclusion that since no substitution petition was filed by two sons of Late Md. Israfil in Revision Case No. 52/2003 even after lapse of almost six months from passing of the order dated 29.01.2018, the said case should not survive any further. However, a notice dated 14/03/2019 was again sent to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 with a copy of the order dated 01.03.2019 whereby the order dated 27.07.2018 passed in Revision Case No. 52/2003 was recalled. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite parties of Pre-emption Case No. 19/2001-02 did not raise any objection regarding maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner and his brothers agitating that the same was not filed in Form L.C.13 as mandated in Rule 19 of the Rules, 1963. Moreover, they also did not raise any issue with respect to non-compliance of any provision of the Act, 1961 or the Rules framed thereunder. The impugned order dated 01.03.2019 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner while passing the same. Moreover, the petitioner was not issued any notice prior to passing the order for substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased original respondent No.5 and hence the same is ab-initio void. The impugned order dated 01.03.2019 is bad in law and if the same is allowed to stand, it will amount to miscarriage of justice and will cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner and hence the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) submits that an application for recall of the order dated 27.07.2018 was filed under Order XLI Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the CPC on the ground that a notice was served to them only in the month of April, 2018 informing that Revision Case No. 52 of 2003 would be heard on 25th of April, 2018 at 2 P.M and also directing them to appear on the said date, failing which an ex-parte order would be passed. The Revisional Court was not available on few dates and under some erroneous assumption, the said respondents could not follow the next appointed dates. Hence, the steps for filing the substitution petition, as was directed by this Court, could not be taken. They were not conversant with the procedure of law and due to which, the substitution petition, as directed by this Court, could not be filed within the prescribed time. The respondent No.2, after hearing the counsel for the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b), allowed the recall petition as well as the substitution petition with further direction to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and to post the matter on 05.04.2019. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the Court of the respondent No.2 whereby the said Court has recalled its earlier order dated 27.07.2018 and has also allowed the substitution petition filed by the respondent Nos. 5(a) and 5(b) and has issued a fresh notice to the petitioner. 6. The thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 01.03.2019 is in the teeth of the order dated 29.01.2018 passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2770 of 2007 and that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as before passing the said order, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents, submits that the respondents had sufficiently explained the delay occurred in filing the substitution petition and the Revisional Court having satisfied with the same, passed the order dated 01.03.2019 which needs no interference by this Court under the writ jurisdiction. 8. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioner and his brothers had filed an application under Section 16(3)(i) of the Act, 1961 which was allowed by the respondent No.4 and the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 5 to 12 was also dismissed by the respondent No.3 affirming the order of the respondent No.4. However, the respondent No.2 allowed the revision application filed by the respondent Nos. 5 to 12 was also dismissed by the respondent No.3 affirming the order of the respondent No.4. However, the respondent No.2 allowed the revision application filed by the respondent Nos. 5 to 12 vide order dated 01.02.2007 observing that the application filed under Section 16(3)(i) of the Act, 1961 before the respondent No.4 did not conform to the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules, 1963. It was further observed that the application filed by the petitioner and his brothers before the respondent No.4 was not in Form L.C.13 as mandated in Rule 19(1) of the Rules, 1963 which was a fatal error vitiating the entire proceeding irrespective of the facts of the case. Aggrieved with the said order, the proforma respondent Nos. 19 to 21 preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2770 of 2007 before this Court wherein it was contended that the order dated 01.02.2007 was passed in favour of dead persons since the original respondent Nos. 5 & 8 had died before passing of the said order. Having taken into consideration the said fact, a Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2018, disposed of the said writ petition with following observation:- “5. After hearing the parties, I am of the view that the matter is fit to be remanded before the respondent no-2 for fresh consideration as admittedly on the date of passing of the impugned order the purchaser of the property who was original respondent no 5 in this writ petition and now been substituted as well as one of the sellers of the property who was original respondent no. 8 in this writ petition and now been substituted were dead. In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 1.2.2007 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent no 2 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby set-aside. 6. The matter is hereby remanded back to the respondent no 2 for fresh consideration after hearing the parties if any petition for substitution of the deceased said persons is filed by the respondent no 5(a) and 5(b) within a period of 2 months from today. In case necessary substitution petitions are filed, the Respondent no 2 shall proceed to hear the matter and pass fresh reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of six months thereafter.” 9. In case necessary substitution petitions are filed, the Respondent no 2 shall proceed to hear the matter and pass fresh reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of six months thereafter.” 9. Thus, a Bench of this Court remanded the matter to the respondent No.2 with specific direction to the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) to file substitution application within two months from the date of passing of the order. The respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) admittedly did not file the same within the time frame. Thereafter, notice was issued to the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) whereby they were directed to appear on 25th April, 2018 for fresh hearing of the matter, however, they failed to file the substitution application and as such the respondent No.2 vide order dated 27.07.2018, set aside the order dated 01.02.2007 with the following observation:- “4. It is almost six months from the date on which Hon’ble High Court given the aforesaid directions. No substitution petition has been filed so far by the two sons of petitioner Md. Israfil. Hence, this case cannot survive further. The order of this court passed on 01.02.2007 stand quashed in terms of the directions of Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.2770 of 2007.” 10. After passing the order dated 27.07.2018, the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) filed substitution application as well as a petition to recall the earlier order dated 27.07.2018 contending that the Revisional Court was not available for few dates and under some erroneous assumption, they could not follow the next appointed dates and hence the steps for filing the substitution application could not be taken. They also contended that since the contesting respondents were not conversant with the procedure of law, the substitution application could not be filed within the prescribed time. Thereafter, the Revisional Court/the respondent No.2 allowed the petition for recall as well as the substitution application without even issuing notice to the petitioner. 11. I am of the considered view that since a Bench of this Court had fixed the time frame for filing the substitution application, the contesting respondents should have strictly followed the same and if for some reasonable grounds, they had failed to adhere to the said time line, they should have prayed for extension of the same by filing an appropriate application before this Court. The respondent No.2 was also bound to strictly comply the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2770 of 2007. Any time line fixed by a superior Court cannot be condoned by an inferior Court on an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and it is only the superior Court, which can extend the same. One of the arguments of learned counsel for the contesting respondents/the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) is that the notice was not served to them within the period fixed by this Court informing them to file the substitution application. The said argument of learned counsel for the contesting respondents has no leg to stand since they were also represented by their lawyer in W.P.(C) No. 2770 of 2007 and as such they were supposed to know about the time line fixed for filing substitution application. The contention of the contesting respondents that the Revisional Court was not available on some dates, is also not acceptable as filing of any petition is accepted in the Court even on the date when it is not available for some reason. 12. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) had shown negligent attitude in filing the substitution application before the revisional authority/the respondent No.2 due to which, the said authority vide order dated 27.07.2018, set aside his earlier order dated 01.02.2007. The respondent No.2 has also committed gross error while passing the impugned order dated 01.03.2019 whereby the order dated 27.07.2018 was recalled and the substitution application filed by the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) was allowed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 01.03.2019 passed in Revision Case No. 52/2003 by the respondent No.2 being contrary to law is hereby quashed. 13. However, since the earlier order dated 01.02.2007 was passed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the original respondent Nos. 5 to 12, in the interest of justice, the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) are allowed to be impleaded in Revision Case No. 52/2003, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by them to the petitioner on the next date of hearing before the respondent No.2 which is fixed as 24.08.2022 for his sufferings due to negligent attitude of the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b). 5(a) & 5(b) are allowed to be impleaded in Revision Case No. 52/2003, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by them to the petitioner on the next date of hearing before the respondent No.2 which is fixed as 24.08.2022 for his sufferings due to negligent attitude of the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b). The respondent No.2 is directed to rehear the matter on merit and to decide the same after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties preferably within two months from the aforesaid date fixed by this Court. 14. The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid direction.