The information about the death party was supposed to be disclosed before the court, this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE JUSTICE SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, in the matter Sk. As far Ali & Ors. Vs. Sk. Asgar Ali [CO. No. 1322 of 2021]. The impugned order No. 37 dated 26th March 2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Additional Court, Hooghly in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2019 arising out of Title Suit No. 370 of 2018, which was directing the petitioner’s parties to furnish information accordingly, where original Title Suit No. 88 of 2014, subsequently transferred and renumbered as Title Suit No. 370 of 2018, had already been dismissed for default by order dated 04.04.2019.
Meanwhile connection to the Misc. Case, opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 filed a petition dated 10.12.2020, seeking a recording of abatement order as against the defendant No.7/opposite party No.7, namely Sri Mandan Baul Das, who died on 14.05.2018.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner’s parties submitted that the Court below had mechanically rejected their prayer for recording the abatement order, as against the defendant No.7/opposite party No.7. Which was contended by Mr Chatterjee that under the behest of an order under Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 3 petitioners could not be compelled to furnish the names and addresses of legal heirs, left by deceased defendant No.7/opposite party No.7, and it was highly illegal having no sanction of law.
But Mr Sounak Bhattacharya, a learned advocate representing the opposite party in reply submitted that there had been collusion in suppressing the death information of deceased defendant No.7, which was easily understood upon visualising the burial certificate, furnished by petitioners party Nos. 1 to 6 in the Court below. It was further contended by Mr Bhattacharya that since the original suit was for declaration and partition, the question of abatement would not necessarily arise, and more so the required death information neither could be 4 furnished by the learned advocate representing the deceased defendant No.7 in the court below nor by the opposite party Nos. 1 to 6/defendants.
And also Misc. The case under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit was filed impleading defendant No.7, who was died. The Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure, a duty has been cast upon learned advocate to communicate to Court, the death information of a party in a suit. It was difficult for the opposite plaintiff to gather knowledge of such death information of deceased defendant No.7 without any required death information being filed by the learned pleader appearing for the deceased defendant No.7, who also entered his appearance for defendant No. 1 to 6/petitioners, involved in this case.
It was mentioned in the original suit that partition has been sought for in respect of subject property, shown in the schedule, upon declaring a sole name decree, dated 14.12.1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Court Chinsurah, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 99 of 1981 and the sole name decree dated 16.12.1981 passed by Civil Judge. The technicalities thus sought to be capitalized by Mr Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, in the given context of this case, should not be given precedence, giving a contrary look to the provisions contained in Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it believed that – The imperative obligation to furnish the death information of deceased defendant No.7 should not have been interpreted in a manner, other than the purpose contemplated under Order XXII Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order did not call for any interference and also the revisional application fails to be without any merits, and accordingly stands dismissed.