Court No. 6 (265719) 24.04.2025 (AD 12) (S. Banerjee) CO 1351 of 2025 Raghunath Shaw & Ors. Vs. Smt. Hafizon Bibi @ Hadizon Bibi & Ors. Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, Sr. Advocate …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs and is directed against an order dated March 13, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) 8th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No. 82 of 1980. By the order impugned the application filed by the petitioner herein praying for amendment of the decree for incorporating the name of the heir of the deceased defendant no. 10 in the decree passed by the learned trial Judge on September 28, 2007 stood rejected. It is not in dispute that the defendant no. 10, namely Taramoni Debi died on November 5, 2005, i.e., during the pendency of the Title Suit No. 82 of 1980. The petitioners herein did not take any step for substitution of the heir of the deceased defendant no. 10 during the pendency of the suit. The defendants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated September 28, 2007 being Title Appeal No. 310 of 2007. In a civil revision arising out of an order passed in Title Appeal No. 310 of 2007 it was brought to the notice of this Court that the defendant no. 10 died during the pendency of the suit. The coordinate Bench by an order dated March 13, 2024 passed in CO 433 of 2017 after noticing the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanailal Manna & Ors. –Vs.- Bhabataran Santra & Ors., reported at AIR 1970 Calcutta 99, directed the learned first appellate court to act in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made by the coordinate Bench while disposing of the said revisional application. The first appellate court by an order being no. 121 dated May 9, 2024 remanded the matter to the learned trial Judge after setting aside the decree passed in Title Suit No. 82 of 1980. After remand, the petitioners herein filed an application under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for correction of the decree. It is not in dispute that the suit abated insofar as defendant no. 10 was concerned as no step was taken for substituting the heirs of the said defendant within the time-limit prescribed in the statute. Thus, the petitioners were required to take steps for substitution of the heir of the deceased defendant no. 10 after setting aside the abatement. 2 Mr. Ghosh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that after remand, the petitioners filed an application for substitution after setting aside abatement upon condonation of delay and such application was allowed by the learned trial Judge. However, the decree which was set aside on the ground that the same was nullity being passed against a dead person could not have been corrected and/or amended by filing an application under Section 152 read with Section 151 CPC in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. The learned trial Judge was right in rejecting the said application. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned trial Judge is requested to proceed with the hearing of the suit in accordance with law and make an endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. With the above observations and directions CO 1351 of 2025 stands disposed of. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 3