1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 600 of 2023 Pralay Kumar Mukherjee, aged about 60 years, son of late Nitai Chandra Mukherjee, resident of Sanjay Bhawan, 215, Dr. A.K. Paul Road, P.O. Behala, P.S. Parnashee, District- Kolkata (West Bengal) ………………….Petitioner … Versus…. 1.Bijay Manjhi, son of late Babun Manjhi 2. Lalo Manjhi, son of late Sodhan Majhi 3. Jirwa Manjhi, son of late Sanjhlu Manjhi 4. Ratho Munda, son of late Matika Munda @ Katika Munda 5. Biro Devi wife of Chetlal Munda 6. Bilwa Devi wife of Ratho Munda 7. Sona Ram Manjhi 8. Mana Ram Manjhi No. 7 and 8 are sons of late Moti Manjhi, All residents of village Bahela, Thana No. 63, P.O. and P.S. Tapin, District- Hazaribag (Jharkhand) .…… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Harsh, Advocate ………. 07/Dated: 17/03/2025 Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge-V, Hazaribag in Title Suit No. 08 of 2014 whereby the learned court has been pleased to allow the petition filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for substitution of the names of legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff no.3. 3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is defendant in the said suit and during pendency of the said suit plaintiff no.3 has died and thereafter a petition has been filed belatedly for substituting the name of legal heirs and successors of the plaintiff 2 no.3 and the learned court has allowed the said petition without considering that legal heirs and successors who have been brought on record are not the legal heirs and successors of the plaintiff no.3 and in that view of the matter the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the opposite parties draws the attention of the Court to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner/defendant to the said petition which was filed for substituting the legal heirs and successors of the plaintiff no. 3 and submits that was not raised before the learned court and for the first time the same has been raised before this Court and in view of that vague contention has been taken that persons who have been brought on record are not the legal heirs and successors of the plaintiff no.3. 5. The Court has perused the rejoinder petition filed by the petitioner/defendant. In the said petition filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties for substitution of legal heirs and successors of the plaintiff no.3, there is no averment in the said rejoinder that persons who have been brought on record are not the legal heirs and successors of the plaintiff no.3. The learned court looking into the petition and further finding that ground of condonation is made out, condoned the delay and also set aside the amendment petition. 6. In view of above, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-