Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010123692025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1851/2025 ARUN GOGOI S/O LATE DHIREN GOGOI, RESIDENT OF GARALIA, PS BASISTHA, GUWAHATI 781034, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS SMTI HIMANI UZIR W/O SRI NIKUNJA UZIR, RESIDENT OF HATIGAON, LAKHIMINGAR, GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUPM ASSAM 781033 2:ON THE DEATH OF LABANYA DAS HER LEGAL HEIRS SRI SUDARSHAN KRISHNA DAS S/O LATE PURNA KRISHNA DAS RESIDENT OF UZAN BAZAR PS LATASHIL GUWAHATI 781001 DIST KAMRUP M ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P C DEY, MR BASAB DEY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N BHARALI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 15.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. C. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. N. Bharali, learned counsel for the respondent. Page No.# 2/2 2. This application under Order 22 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Arun Gogoi for allowing the connected CRP No. 18/2021 to proceed against the respondents who are on record including the respondent No. 3 Sri Sudarshan Krishna Das on death of Smti. Labanya Das who was earlier arrayed as proforma defendant No. 2 in the said CRP. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Smti. Labanya Das expired leaving behind the respondent No. 3 as her sole legal heir and, therefore, there is no necessity of substituting the legal heir of respondent No. 2 as Sri Sudarshan Krishna Das is already on record as respondent No. 3. He, therefore, submits that as right to sue survive against the surviving defendant i.e., respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 2, the present civil revision petition may be allowed to proceed against the surviving defendant alone in terms of the provisions of order 22 Rule 2 of the CPC. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose the prayer. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as considering the submissions made by the respondent, this application under Order 22 Rule 2 of the CPC is hereby allowed. The connect CRP No. 18/2025 shall accordingly proceed only against the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. 6. The Registry is directed to strike out the name of respondent No. 2 from the cause-title of the civil revision petition. 7. List this connected civil revision petition after that on a date to be fixed by the Registry. JUDGE Comparing Assistant