Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010107762024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3414/2025 SAFIQUR RAHMAN MAZARBHUIYA S/O LATE MANIR ALI MAZARBHUIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RANGPUR PART II PO SHAHABAD 788163 PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM VERSUS MD FARAS UDDIN AND ORS S/O LATE MATOSIN ALI RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 2:MD. RAFIQUE UDDIN S/O LATE MATOSIN ALI RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 3:MUSST. TAYARUN NESSA D/O LATE MATOSIN ALI Page No.# 2/8 RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 4:MUSST. FOIZUN NESSA D/O LATE MATOSIN ALI RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 5:MD. JAMIR UDDIN S/O LATE MATASIN ALI RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 6:MD. AZIM UDDIN S/O LATE MUDARIS ALI RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 7:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR HAILAKANDI ASSAM 8:THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HAILAKANDI ASSAM 9:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI Page No.# 3/8 ASSAM 10:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 11:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF UNION MINISTRY/UNION OF INDIA OF SHIPPING ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NEW DELHI 110001 ------------ Advocate for : MS.SHOMA DASGUPTA Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for MD FARAS UDDIN AND ORS In RSA/86/2024 SAFIQUR RAHMAN MAZARBHUIYA S/O LATE MANIR ALI MAZARBHUIYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RANGPUR PART II, PO SHAHABAD, 788163, PS KATLICHERRA, DIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS FARAS UDDIN AND 10 ORS S/O LATE MATOSIN ALI, RESIDENT OF RANGPUR, PART III, PO SHAHABAD, PS KATLICHERRA, DIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 788163 2:MD. RAFIQUE UDDIN S/O LATE MATOSIN ALI RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 3:MUSST. TAYARUN NESSA D/O LATE MATOSIN ALI Page No.# 4/8 RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 4:MUSST. FOIZUN NESSA D/O LATE MATOSIN ALI RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 5:MD. JAMIR UDDIN S/O LATE MATASIN ALI RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 6:MD. AZIM UDDIN S/O LATE MUDARIS ALI RESIDENT OF RANGPUR PART III PO SHAHABAD PS KATLICHERRA DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788163 7:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR HAILAKANDI ASSAM 8:THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HAILAKANDI ASSAM 9:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI Page No.# 5/8 ASSAM 10:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPT. DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 11:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF UNION MINISTRY/UNION OF INDIA OF SHIPPING ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NEW DELHI 11000 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.SHOMA DASGUPTA, MS SUPRIYA DASGUPTA,MR. N DHAR Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR M AHMED (R-6),MR. A S TAPADER (R-6),MR. A H ALAMGIR (r-1 TO 4),MR. C K S BARUAH(CGC),SC, REVENUE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 08.12.2025 1. Heard Ms. S. Dasgupta, the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant. Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 7,8 and 9 as well as Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 10 and Mr. R.K. Deb Choudhury, the learned Dy. S.G.I. appearing for the respondent No. 11. 2. This application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the Page No.# 6/8 appellant/applicant in connection with RSA No. 86/2024 praying for striking out the name of respondent No. 5 Md. Jamir Uddin, who has already expired. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that on verification of the trial court records, it came to the notice of the applicant that though the respondent No. 5 appeared before the trial court in the suit as defendant No. 1 by filing Vakalatnama, however, no written statement was filed by the said respondents/defendants. She further submits that the said respondents also did not adduce any evidence in defence and there is nothing on record to indicate that apart from filing Vakalatnama, he had contested the suit. She, therefore, submits that as Order 22, Rule 4 (4) exempts the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant, who has failed to file written statement or had failed to contest the suit at hearing, she has prayed for striking out of the name of the said respondents from the memo of appeal. 4. On the other hand, Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Senior Additional Government Counsel appearing for the State respondent and other counsel appearing for remaining respondents have submitted that the prayer for striking out of the respondent No. 5 may be considered only if this court comes to a conclusion that the said respondent is not a necessary party to the suit. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. Page No.# 7/8 6. It appears from the averments made in the instant interlocutory application that the prayer for striking out of the name of the respondent No. 5 has been made merely on the ground that he did not filed any written statement nor he contested the suit by adducing any evidence. Hence, the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 (4) of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 allow an exemption to the plaintiff/appellant from substituting the name of any such defendant on his death. 7. It also appears that the present applicant has also filed another interlocutory application numbered as I.A. (Civil) No. 3415/2025, whereby the applicant has prayed for allowing him to withdraw the other three interlocutory applications, which were filed by the said applicant, namely, I.A. (Civil) No. 820/2025, I.A. (Civil) No. 819/2025 and I.A.(Civil) No. 3583/2024 by which prayer for substituting the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 5 was made. 8. After considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant in the said interlocutory application, the applicant was allowed to withdraw those three interlocutory applications. As regards the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application regarding striking out of the name of the respondent No. 5 from the memo of appeal is concerned, as this court may have to go into the question as whether the said defendant is a necessary party or not, the said prayer is not acceded to at this stage. Moreso, when the prayer for exemption made by the applicant in other interlocutory applications for necessity of substituting the legal heirs of respondent No. 5 has been acceded to by this court. 9. Hence, this Interlocutory Application (Civil) is accordingly Page No.# 8/8 disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant