2025:JHHC:34283 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No. 1076 of 2025 ----- 1. Punit Yadav @ Punit Gope, S/o Late Churaman Gope 2. Khublal Gope, S/o Late Churaman Gope 3. Deglal Gope, S/o Late Churaman Gope 4. Mahadeo Gope, S/o Late Churaman Gope, All are R/o Village-Jhurjhuri, P.O. & P.S.-Barkatha, Barkatha, Dist.- Hazaribagh, State-Jharkhand … …. Petitioners Versus 1. Massomat Chundari @ Massomat Goura, D/o Late Hupali Gope & W/o Kamal Pal @ Gope 2. Jhabu Gope, S/o Late Jaswa 3. Tara Devi, W/o Late Kaila Gope 3(i) Jageshwar Yadav, S/o Late Kaila Gope 3(ii) Jawahir Yadav, S/o Late Kaila Gope 3(iii) Dhaneshwari Devi, D/o Late Kaila Gope 3(iv) Savitri Devi, D/o Late Kaila Gope 3(v) Kalo Devi, D/o Late Kaila Gope 3(vi) Manni Devi, D/o Late Kaila Gope 4. Khubali Gope, S/o Late Jaswa All are R/o Village-Jhurjhuri P.O. & P.S.-Barkatha, Barkatha, Dist.- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 5(a) Baleshwar Yadav, S/o Parmeshwar Yadav 5(b) Narayan Yadav, S/o Parmeshwar Yadav, Both are R/o Village-Chamgudo, P.O.-Kako, P.S.-Telaiya Dam, Dist.- Koderma 6. Smt. Jagani Devi, D/o Late Punit Gope, S/o Sri Talo Mahto, R/o Village & P.O.-Adwar, P.S.-Daru, Dist.-Hazaribagh … …. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate For the Opp. parties : ----- Oral Order 02 / Dated : 17.11.2025 1. The petitioners are defendant nos. 2 to 5 in Partition Suit No. 11/1989 and are aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2025 by which the name of plaintiff no. 6 is permitted to be deleted and that of plaintiff no. 3-Kaila Gope is substituted by his legal heirs and descendants as detailed in the application for substitution. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that a suit abates on the death of a party and no separate order is required the suit to have abated. 2025:JHHC:34283 2 3. In this case, the substitution of plaintiff no. 3 was allowed without disclosing the date of his death and the abatement has also been set aside without passing a formal order of setting aside of abatement. Reliance is placed on (2008) 8 SCC 321 (Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom Vs. Bhargavi Amma). 4. It is contended that defendant no. 6 has been deleted, although she died leaving behind her legal heirs and descendants. Still the name of heirs and descendants of defendant no. 6 has not been stated. 5. This is a partition suit where all the parties, including the present petitioners, are from the same family and still neither the date of death nor the heirship of defendant no. 6 is disclosed. 6. Under the circumstance unless the Petitioner had brought to the notice of the learned trial Court bout the actual date of death no enquiry could have been ordered with regard to the heirship of defendant no.6. It appears that no one came forward to assert that they were the heir and successor of defendant no.6. In this view matter the learned, trial court could not have suo motu entered into a roving enquiry regarding heirship of defendant no.6. 7. Further, since the issue of delay in filing substitution petition was not raised before the trial court, the same cannot be considered at this stage., Court cannot enter into an enquiry unless the materials are brought on record regarding the delay in preferring the substitution petition or that any party has not been substituted. 8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, authority relied upon on behalf of the petitioner does not help his case. 9. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. This Civil Misc. Petition stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satyendra Uploaded 19.11.2025