IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 135 of 2019 With I.A. No. 7169 of 2022 1. Chamu Pahan, aged about 64 years, S/o- Late Kamal Pahan, 2. Smt. Randai Kumari Hassa, aged about 46 years, W/o- Late Dhani Pahan. 3. Miss Rita Tiru, aged about 26 years, 4. Miss Pushpika Tiru, aged about 23 years, 5. Miss Nidhi Tiru, aged about 18 years, 6. Miss Nishi Tiru, aged about 16 years, Serial No. 3 to 6, Daughters of Late Dhani Pahan, All R/o- Village & PO- Ethe, PS- Murhu, District- Khunti (previously Ranchi), Pin Code-835210. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand (previously Bihar). 2. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division at Ranchi, PO- G.P.O., PS- Kotwali, District- Ranchi. 3. The Additional Collector, Ranchi, at PO- G.P.O., PS- Kotwali, District-Ranchi. 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti, at PO & PS- Khunti, District-Khunti. 5. Sudhni Mishra, W/o- Late Hari Mishra. 6. Sudama Mishra, S/o- Late Hari Mishra 7. Ajit Mishra, S/o- Late Hari Mishra. Serial No.5 to 7, all residents of Village- Dahugutu, PO & PS- Khunti, District- Khunti (previously Ranchi). 8. Satyanarayan Mishra, S/o- Jagarnath Mishra, R/o- Village & PO- Ethe, PS-Murhu, District- Khunti (previously Ranchi), Pin Code- 835210. … … Opp. Parties --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Senior Advocate : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate : Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Singh, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 5 to 8 : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Senior Advocate : Mr. P.A.N. Roy, Advocate : Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, AC to SC Mines-III --- 11/14.02.2025 I.A. No. 7169 of 2022 2. This interlocutory application has been filed so as to permit the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 to pursue the present review petition. 2 3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the writ petition being CWJC No. 2022 of 2000 (R) was filed way back in the year 2000 and was disposed of vide order no. 13 dated 16.07.2018. In the writ petition, Dhani Pahan was respondent no. 6 who expired during the pendency of the writ petition in the year 2005 but this fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court and ultimately, the order in the writ petition was passed wherein Dhani Pahan continued to be respondent no.6. The learned counsel submits that it was the duty of the writ petitioner to take appropriate steps for substitution of deceased Dhani Pahan, but no such step was taken and apparently, the learned counsel had no information in this regard and consequently, the order was passed in the writ petition. The learned counsel also submits that the fact remains that Dhani Pahan (a deceased) is a party in the final order dated 16.07.2018 passed in CWJC No. 2022 of 2000 (R) which is the subject matter of review in the present case. 4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners further submits that the present petitioner nos. 2 to 6 may be permitted to pursue the present review petition along with petitioner no. 1. He has also submitted that it would be sufficient if the order of the writ Court is recalled and the writ petition is placed for fresh hearing. The learned counsel has also submitted that if the order of the writ Court dated 16.07.2018 is recalled, the petitioners would take suo moto steps in the writ petition so that the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 herein are substituted in the writ records in place of deceased respondent no. 6 of the writ petition. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite parties has opposed the prayer and has submitted that as per the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10-A of Code of Civil Procedure, it was the duty of at least the brother of deceased Dhani Pahan, who was also a party in the writ petition and is the petitioner no.1 in this case , to inform this Court about death of Dhani Pahan so that the writ petitioner could have taken appropriate steps for substitution. This having not been done, the fault lies at the end of Chamu Pahan 3 (respondent no. 5 in the writ record and petitioner no. 1 in the present case). 6. On merits, the learned Senior counsel for the private opposite parties has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2022) 17 SCC 255 (S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others) and has submitted that the scope of review has been duly discussed in paragraph no. 33 of the said judgment. He submits that the grounds mentioned in the review petition are apparently in the nature of appeal. However, it is not in dispute that Dhani Pahan had expired while the writ petition being CWJC No. 2022 of 2000 (R) was pending. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that present petitioner nos. 2 to 6 were not party in the writ proceedings and their predecessor-in-interest Dhani Pahan was respondent no. 6 in the writ petition being CWJC No. 2022 of 2000 (R) who expired during pendency of the said writ petition, but for one reason or the other, he could not be substituted. The writ petitioner is blaming respondent no. 5 and so far as petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are concerned they have no role to play. The fact also remains that the writ petition of the year 2000 was disposed of in the year 2018 and the current status of the parties was not brought to the notice of the court and apparently, the learned counsels were also not aware about the death of respondent no.6 in the writ petition. Thus, writ order has been passed where a dead person is a party and the legal heirs and successors are petitioner no.2 to 6 in this case. The writ order having been passed against a dead person is required to be recalled once it has been brought on record by the petitioner no. 2 to 6 that respondent no.6 of the writ petition expired during the pendency of the writ petition and such fact is not in dispute. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I.A. No. 7169 of 2022 is hereby allowed and petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are permitted to pursue the present civil review petition and the office defect in this regard is ignored. Further, since the order passed in the writ petition 4 against a dead person has a direct bearing on the rights of the legal heirs of deceased Dhani Pahan, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 16.07.2018 passed in the writ petition is required to be recalled and the writ petition is required to be heard afresh. 9. Consequently, the order dated 16.07.2018 passed in CWJC No. 2022 of 2000 (R) is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original file so that fresh order is passed in the writ petition upon substitution of respondent no. 6 i.e. Dhani Pahan in the writ records. It is made clear that this order is being passed solely on account of the reason that the order in the writ petition has been passed against a dead person. 10. CWJC No. 2022 of 2000(R) is directed to be listed before appropriate Bench as per roster. 11. Learned Senior counsel for the review petitioners has undertaken before this Court that they will themselves take steps for the purposes of substitution of respondent no. 6 in the writ records, once the writ petition is restored and accordingly, the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 shall do the needful by filing appropriate petition in the writ records within a period of one month from today. 12. This civil review petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Pankaj