JUDGMENT
S.N. Hussain, J.
1. These two civil revision petitions are being heard and decided together as both of them have been filed by two different defendants against the same order dated 5.7.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 653 of 1987 by which the learned Sub-Judge IV, Patna, has allowed the petition of Opposite Party No. 1 under Order I, Rule 10, CPC and it was directed to be added as plaintiff in the suit.
2. The short fact of this case is that the aforesaid Title Suit No. 653 of 1987 was filed by Ram Kishore Prasad Narain Singh (original plaintiff) for declaration that he was a co-sharer to the extent of 1/6th share in the suit property and was in joint possession thereof and for other ancillary reliefs. However, the said sold original plaintiff died on 15.3.2001 but none of his Class-I, heirs come forward for being substituted nor any notice of the suit was sent to them. Later, on 11.6.2001 a petition under Order I, Rule 10, CPC was filed by O.P. No. 1, namely, Maksudpur Institute of Research and Education in Natural and Social Sciences (hereinafter in short ‘the Institute’) through its trustee Sri Ajay Singh, who was one of the sons of the deceased original plaintiff, for being impleaded in place of original plaintiff on the basis of a deed of assignment executed by him on 14.10.1999 in favour of the Institute. This petition has been allowed by the impugned order as mentioned above.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner of Civil revision No. 1680/2003 submits that after coming to know about the death of sole original plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the Court to send notices to his Class-I heirs and without doing so the Court was not justified in allowing the petition of the intervenes. He further claimed that no step for substitution was taken with respect to the Class-I heirs of the sole original plaintiff and hence the impugned order suffers from grave illegality and jurisdictional error.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner of Civil revision No. 1592/2003 also challenges the impugned order, but on the ground that since after the death of Ram Kishore Prasad Narain Singh (original plaintiff), his heirs were not substituted within the prescribed period not they had come forward with any petition under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, the suit had abated. He further claimed that any petition by an assignee can not take place of an application under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC, hence the petition filed by the intervenors under Order I, Rule 10, CPC should not have been legally allowed.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the intervenor- Opposite Party No. 1 contests the said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and submits that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order after considering the matter in detail and there is no illegality or any jurisdictional error therein and hence there was no occasion for this Court to interfere with the same.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, it is quite apparent that since the sole original plaintiff has died, there is no occasion for filling any petition under Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC by any of the parties to the suit and it was for the heirs of the sole plaintiff to appear and file such petition. The said heirs have not filed any petition nor they raised any objection either to the petition of the intervenor or to the intervenors impleadment by the impugned order and, hence in my view, there was no occasion for application of Order XXII, Rule 3, CPC by any other person in the suit.
7. Since the intervenor-Opposite Party No. 1 is claiming to be impleaded in place of original plaintiff on the basis of a deed of assignment, steps taken by him under Order I, Rule 10, CPC, in my opinion, was quite proper and justified. Moreover, since the intervenor Institute is also represented through one of the heirs of the original plaintiff and the intervention petition having been filed within ninety days of the death of the original sole plaintiff, there can not be any question of abatement of the suit.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly both the Civil Revisions are dismissed but without any cost. However, since the suit is more than seventeen years old, the learned Court below is directed to fix a date of hearing of the suit and dispose it of hearing it on day to day basis. Both the parties undertake that they will fully co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the suit.