Court No. 6 (265719) 02.07.2026 (AD 25) (S. Banerjee) CO 1526 of 2026 Sri Hiranmoy Roy Vs. Sadhan Chandra Ghosh & Ors. Mr. Sanjib Seth Mr. Krishanu Banik Mr. Tathagata Banik …for the petitioner Mr. Falguni Majhi …for the opposite-parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the judgment-debtor and is directed against an order being no. 21 dated April 21, 2026 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 3rd Court, Purba Bardhaman in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2024 arising out of Title Execution Case No. 2 of 2023. By the order impugned the Misc. Case under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code which was registered as Misc. Case No. 10 of 2024 stood rejected. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff no. 1 died on October 21, 2009 and the suit was decreed without the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff being substituted in place and stead of the plaintiff no. 1. In support of such contention the learned advocate 2 appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court to the rectification of the decree and submits that the said rectification was made after the judgment and decree was passed in the suit. He further submits that there has been non-compliance of the provisions of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code while proceeding with the execution proceedings. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that the plaintiff no. 1 died on October 21, 2009 leaving behind him surviving plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 as sons and four daughters. An application for bringing on record the daughters of the deceased plaintiff was filed and the daughters of the deceased/plaintiff were thereafter brought on record pursuant to an order passed by the learned trial judge. He submits that there was no abatement of the suit. He further submits that the procedure laid down under Order 21 has been strictly followed. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. The original plaintiff no. 1 namely, Dasharathi Ghosh died on October 21, 2009. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of the said Dasharathi Ghosh. It is now well-settled that if some of the heirs of the deceased party is already on record, there shall be no abatement of the suit and there is 3 also no necessity to file an application for substitution and the other heirs of the deceased party may be brought on record by an appropriate application. Learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties submits that an application was filed for bringing on record the daughters of the plaintiff no. 1 as parties in the suit. Though the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner disputes the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocate appearing for the opposite parties, this Court finds that the names of the daughters of the plaintiff no. 1 have been duly recorded in the decree which is appearing at page 22 of the civil revision application. This Court has already held that it is not a case of abatement of the suit as some of the heirs of the deceased parties were already on record. That apart the daughters of the said deceased plaintiff were also brought on record and the decree has also been amended. This Court holds that there is no irregularity in the proceeding of the suit. The executing court in the order impugned has also recorded a factual finding that the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff has been substituted in the original title suit as per the law. The objection as to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Order 4 21 Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Code has also been considered by the learned executing court and it was held that a decree cannot be declared as null and void due to procedural or technical inconsistency which can be cured by the Court in the interest of justice by applying the principle of “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit”. The learned Judge of the executing Court assigned cogent reasons in support of the ultimate conclusion rejecting the misc. case under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with such order. Accordingly, CO 1526 of 2026 stands dismissed. At this stage learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the hearing of the title appeal may be expedited. The learned District Judge, Purba Bardhaman is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of the Title Appeal No. 42 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)