Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 108 (PAT)

Sahabaj Alam @ Shawaz Alam v. Abdul Gafoor

2024-01-23

SANDEEP KUMAR

body2024
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The service of notice on the unserved respondents is treated to be valid. 3. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the order dated 3.10.2015 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-6, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 275 of 2011 by which the petitions dated 25.05.2015 for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 19 has been rejected only on the ground that it was filed after the limitation had expired. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Sub-Judge has power for condoning the delay and an application was made for condonation of delay but the power for condoning the delay has not been properly exercised by the concerned officer. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent side has opposed the application of the petitioners and has supported the impugned order. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. 7. When the Written Statement on behalf of defendant No. 19 was already on record then for the reasons mentioned in the limitation petition, the Sub-Judge ought to have allowed the same. 8. In the opinion of this Court, a Suit be decided on merits and shall not be dismissed or disposed of only on technical grounds and that too by not allowing the substitution petition. 9. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 3.10.2015 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-6, Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 275 of 2011 is illegal and the cannot be sustained and therefore the same is hereby quashed. 10. There is no objection from the respondent side with regard to heirs and legal representatives of defendant no. 19 and in these circumstances the petitions dated 25.05.2015 filed for condonation of delay and for substitution of legal heirs of defendant no. 19 are allowed. 11. The Court below is directed to proceed expeditiously in the Title Suit No. 275 of 2011 as the same is of the year 2011 and decide the same at the earliest preferably within a year from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands allowed.