D/L- 25 22/04/2025 Ct. No.-6 Aritra C.O. 1312 of 2025 Dulal Chandra Kar & Ors. Vs. Sri Birajanand Rudra & Ors. Mr. Purnasish Gupta Mr. Mukul Kumar Mitra .…for the petitioner Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya Mr. Sidupta Sengupta ….for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order dated March 10, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Bishnupur in Title Suit No.44 of 1976. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff No.4 died and no application for substitution of the heirs of the deceased/plaintiff was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Thereafter, an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for striking out the name of the deceased/plaintiff. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that since no application for substitution was filed within the stipulated time limit, the suit has abated against the plaintiff No.4. The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party however submits that the suit was filed by the deity represented by the shebayets. Plaintiff No.4 was 2 also one of the shebayets and upon his death the legal heirs of the said plaintiff did not become shebayet of the said deity. He submits that the other shebayets are already on record and, therefore, there is no question of any abatement. After going through the order impugned, this Court finds that the learned Trial Judge allowed the application of the opposite parties for striking out the name of the plaintiff No.4 from the cause title of the plaint. Since admittedly the legal heirs of the plaintiff No.2 did not become shebayets upon the death of the plaintiff No.4, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Judge was right in allowing the application for striking out the name of the plaintiff No.4 from the cause title of the plaint. At this stage, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner prays for a direction upon the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the suit expeditiously. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the evidence is going on. In the light of the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner CO 1312 of 2025 is disposed of by requesting the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Bishnupur to take up the hearing of the Title Suit No.44 of 1976, if the same is otherwise ready for hearing and make an endeavor to see that the same is disposed of as expeditiously as possible without granting any 3 unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, keeping in mind the fact that the suit is pending from the year 1976. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)