SACHINDRA NATH MITRA vs RAM BHARAT PANDEY & ORS.

Registrar (Administration) has submitted his report dated March 23, 2018 stating that during pendency of the appeal several applications were filed by

the heirs of the sole appellant and were disposed of but no substitution application was found in the file.

It appears from the order dated August 2, 1995 that submission was made on behalf of the appellant’s heirs that the sole appellant/plaintiff

Sachindranath Mitra died long back and the application for substitution was duly made long back with the service to the other side. The substitution

application was made in due time and it was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that it was a lawazima matter to be dealt with by the concerned

Additional Registrar (Judicial) and it was observed in the said order that the matter should go out of the list at the moment and the matter should go to

the appropriate officer for taking due steps in accordance with law and liberty to mention was given. The said matter was not mentioned in the

Lawazima Court and it is submitted that no substitution application was found in the file. After disposal of the appeal the file was sent to the decree

section for drawing up of the decree but there is no order regarding bringing the heirs of the sole appellant so the Deputy Registrar (Court) faced

difficulties to draw up the decree as no amendment of the Memorandum of Appeal was made after demise of the sole appellant. Accordingly, an

order has been sought for by the Registrar (Administration).

From the report of the Registrar (Administration) it is axiomatic from the order dated August 2, 1995 itself that the substitution applications were made

in due time and were all on record. It is pertinent to take note on the fact that several orders have been passed inconsistent to each other sometime

saying that the appeal is ready for hearing and sometime that the appeal is not ready because the records are not complete.

The department and the administration did not appear to have worked out properly in due time. The order sheet continued to be noted with the original

appellant Sachindranath Mitra in spite of the fact that long back the matter was brought to the notice of the department and the Court.

Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya with Mr. Arindam Bhattacharyya appeared for the appellants and the second appeal has been duly disposed of upon

hearing both the sides. There was no whisper made in the subsequent report of the Registrar (Administration) concerned but the second appeal was

placed for hearing before the Court as being ready. It would also appear from the records that Mr. Arindam Bhattacharyya submitted xerox copies of

the exhibits being Exts. 1 to 11 on behalf of the appellants and the appellants appear to have been arrayed as Gorachand Mitra and others being legal

heirs of the sole appellant Sachindranath Mitra who had expired long back as it transpired from the order sheet. It is true that there is no noting in the

memorandum of appeal as regards the substituted appellants. Vokalatnama filed by Mr. Arindam Bhattacharyya, junior of Mr. Kamalesh

Bhattacharyya. It would appear that they have filed Vokalatnama on behalf of Abha Mitra, Gora Chand Mitra, Gopal Chand Mitra, Bhola Nath Mitra,

Pratap Chand Mitra, Monju Bose, Lalima Ghosh and Nupur Dey. On their instance substitution application of the legal heirs of the deceased

respondent no. 2 was filed on December 16, 2014 revealing that Gora Chand Mitra, Gopal Chand Mitra, Bhola Chand Mitra and Pratap Chand Mitra

are four sons of late Sachindranath Mitra of 182/4, Dharmatala Road, P.S. Malipanchghar, District- Howrah-6, whereas the appellant no.5 to no.7

having arrayed as the daughters of late Sachindranath Mitra and order was passed substituting the names of the legal heirs of the deceased

respondent no. 2 after condoning the delay and set aside the abatement of second appeal vide CAN No. 12377 of 2014 filed on December 16, 2014

by the said appellants. The notices were also served accordingly at the instance of the aforesaid heirs of the deceased sole appellant who appears to

have been arrayed as the appellants 1 to 7.

In the premises aforesaid and in consideration of the fact that the parties have argued before the Court in detail on the merits of the case and the

second appeal having been disposed of vide order dated February 1, 2018, let the necessary noting in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal be

made substituting the names of said heirs of Sachindranath Mitra. Accordingly, decree be drawn up.

Certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.