Item- 31. sg 14-07-2026 Ct. 6 CO 4217 of 2025 Rahul Maheshwari & Anr. Versus Sheila Guha & Ors. [ Mr. Subham Gupta Mr. S. N. Singh Md. Ayaan Mr. Rajsekhar Bal Bakshi …for the petitioners This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendants and is directed against an order being No. 60 dated 24th July, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, 4th Bench, Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta in Ejectment Suit no. 117 of 2014. By the order impugned, the prayer of the petitioners for striking out the name of the first defendant was allowed. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed an additional application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substitution of the heirs of the deceased defendant no.1. The learned trial judge directed the name of the first defendant to be struck out from the cause title of the plaint. After going through the application filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties, captioned as one under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court finds that the case made out by the plaintiffs/opposite parties is that three defendants were the joint tenants and upon the death of the first defendant, the tenancy right of the first defendant stood devolved upon the other defendants. Though the application was captioned as one under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure but the plaintiffs/opposite parties prayed for deletion of the name of the defendant no.1 from the cause title of the plaint. It is well-settled that courts should consider the substance of the application rather than its caption. The case made out by the applicants of the impugned application was that upon the death of one of the joint tenants, the right to sue survives upon the remaining joint tenants who are already on record and not against the heirs of the deceased joint tenants. This Court finds that the learned trial judge was right in allowing the prayer for striking out the name of the defendant no.1. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity and warrant for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This civil revisional application is accordingly, disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 2