Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010127732025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/221/2025 SMT LATIKA DAS AND 2 ORS WIFE OF LATE BHUBAN CHANDRA DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEKAPARA (JUGIPARA), P.O.- GUWAHATI AIRPORT, P.S.- AZARA, GUWAHATI-781015, DIST- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM 2: PRANJEET KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE BHUBAN CHANDRA DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEKAPARA (JUGIPARA) P.O.- GUWAHATI AIRPORT P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSAM 3: SUCHINDRA KUMAR DAS SON OF LATE BHUBAN CHANDRA DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEKAPARA (JUGIPARA) P.O.- GUWAHATI AIRPORT P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (METRO) ASSA VERSUS NAREN CHANDRA DAS AND 8 ORS. SON OF LATE MAHENDRA DAS, R/O VILL- DEKAPARA (JUGIPARA), P.O. - GUWAHATI AIRPORT, P.S.- AZARA, GUWAHATI-781015, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:MUNINDRA DAS SON OF LATE MAHENDRA DAS R/O VILL- DEKAPARA (JUGIPARA) P.O. - GUWAHATI AIRPORT Page No.# 2/7 P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:ON THE DEATH OF HIREN CHANDRA DAS HIS LEGAL HIERS NAMELY 3.1:SMTI. BINA BALA DAS W/O LATE HIREN CHANDRA DAS R/O VILL- DEKAPARA (JUGIPARA) P.O. - GUWAHATI AIRPORT P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3.2:MS. MEENAKSHI DAS D/O LATE HIREN CHANDRA DAS R/O VILL- DEKAPARA (JUGIPARA) P.O. - GUWAHATI AIRPORT P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3.3:MS. BABITA DAS D/O LATE HIREN CHANDRA DAS R/O VILL- DEKAPARA (JUGIPARA) P.O. - GUWAHATI AIRPORT P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3.4:MRIDUL DAS S/O LATE HIREN CHANDRA DAS R/O VILL- DEKAPARA (JUGIPARA) P.O. - GUWAHATI AIRPORT P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3.5:NABAJYOTI DAS S/O LATE HIREN CHANDRA DAS R/O VILL- DEKAPARA (JUGIPARA) Page No.# 3/7 P.O. - GUWAHATI AIRPORT P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4:SMT. NIRALA DAS W/O SRI MANHARI MEDHI AND D/O LATE MAHENDRA DAS R/O VILL- KAHIKUCHI P.O. AND P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781017 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 5:SMT. ANIMA DAS W/O SRI AMRIT CHANDRA DAS AND D/O LATE MAHENDRA DAS R/O VILL- AZARA (OJHAPARA) P.O. AND P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781017 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 6:ON THE DEATH OF NIRU DAS HER LEGAL HEIRS NAMELY 6.1:GAUTAM DAS S/O LATE USHA DAS H/O LATE NIRU DAS R/O VILL- DHARAPUR (KOCHPARA) P.O. AND P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781017 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 6.2:MISS CHAYANIKA DAS D/O GAUTAM DAS AND LATE NIRU DAS R/O VILL- DHARAPUR (KOCHPARA) P.O. AND P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781017 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 6.3:MISS MANIKA DAS D/O GAUTAM DAS AND LATE NIRU DAS R/O VILL- DHARAPUR (KOCHPARA) P.O. AND P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781017 Page No.# 4/7 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 7:SMT. PRANITA DAS W/O LATE UMESH CHANDRA DAS R/O VILL- DEKAPARA (BORJHAR) P.O.- GUWAHATI AIRPORT P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 8:SAMARJEET DAS S/O LATE UMESH CHANDRA DAS R/O VILL- DEKAPARA (BORJHAR) P.O.- GUWAHATI AIRPORT P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 9:BEDANTA DAS S/O LATE UMESH CHANDRA DAS R/O VILL- DEKAPARA (BORJHAR) P.O.- GUWAHATI AIRPORT P.S.- AZARA GUWAHATI-781015 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER CUM NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. PRANITA DAS Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H MAURYA, MR. S K BHATTACHARYYA Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 18.06.2025 Heard Mr. H. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Page No.# 5/7 petitioners have challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 12.06.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 26/2021. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 12.06.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Kamrup(M), Guwahati (‘trial Court’, for short) had rejected the petition No. 1252/2023, filed by the petitioners on 24.07.2023, under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for substitution of legal heirs of the defendant No. 6, Smt. Niru Das, in Title Suit No. 26/2021. 4. Mr. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had instituted one title suit, being Title Suit No. 26/2021, wherein the respondents herein entered appearance and submitted their written statement in the said suit. Mr. Maruya also submits that during the pendency of the said title suit, the defendant No. 6, Smt. Niru Das suffered demise, but the said information was not received by the learned trial Court from the learned counsel for the defendant No. 6 and after being aware of the said fact, the petitioners herein filed one substitution petition, being petition No. 732/2023, however, the learned trial Court dismissed the said petition by holding that it is not in proper format and not accompanied by the death certificate of the deceased defendant No. 6. Mr. Maurya also submits that subsequently, the petitioners filed another petition, being petition No. 1252/2023, but the said petition also came to be dismissed on the ground that the petition was filed after elapse of the limitation period, and in the meantime, the suit stood abated against the deceased defendant No. 6, Smt. Niru Das. 4.1. Mr. Maurya further submits that the defendant No. 6 was not a family member of the petitioners and the petitioners were not aware of about her death, and the same was not informed to the Court also by the learned counsel Page No.# 6/7 for the defendant No. 6, and that the petitioners had filed the first petition, being petition No. 732/2023, within time. Further, Mr. Maurya submits that after the first petition, being petition No. 732/2023, came to be dismissed, the petitioners tried to collect the death certificate of the deceased defendant No. 6, but they could not succeed, and as such, there was delay in filing the petition which was not intentional, but circumstantial, and therefore, he has contended to afford an opportunity to the petitioners 5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned order dated 12.06.2024. 6. Taking note of the submission of Mr. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the petitioners to file a fresh petition before the learned trial Court under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for substitution of legal heirs of the deceased defendant No. 6, along with a petition for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for which they could not file the petition within the stipulated period, and on such petition being filed by the petitioners herein, the learned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law keeping in mind that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act or under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code any other similar provision should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona-fide is imputable to a party, as held in the case of Ram Nath Sao @ Ram Nath Sahu vs. Gobardhan Sao and Ors., reported in (2002) 3 SCC 195. The petitioners shall file the aforementioned petition before the learned trial Court within a period of one week from today. Page No.# 7/7 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.06.2024, stands interfered with to the extent, as indicated above. 8. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of at this motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant