D/L- 11 25/08/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 2471 of 2025 Sri Dipankar Ghosh Vs. Basudeb Ghosh & Ors. Ms. Debarati Sen (Bose) ….for the petitioner Mr. Bhagbat Chowdhuri Mr. Ajit Kumar Barman ….for the opposite parties Though this matter is appearing under the heading “Extension of Interim Order” but with the consent of the respective parties the main civil revisional application is taken up for final hearing by treating the same as on the day’s list. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant no.2 and is directed against an order dated June 4, 2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), 2nd Court at Baruipur in Title Suit No.590 of 2018. By the order impugned the heirs of the deceased plaintiff nos.3 and 5 were substituted. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application for substitution was not filed within the stipulated time frame for which the suit stood abated. She further submits that since no application for setting aside abatement was filed within the prescribed time limit under the statute, the delay in filing the same ought to have been explained by filing an appropriate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. She 2 submits that the plaintiffs neither prayed for setting aside abatement nor prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application. Mr. Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs/opposite parties submits that the reasons for the delay in filing the application for substitution and the setting aside abatement have been explained in the body of the application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh & Ors. vs. Annabai Devram Kini & Ors., reported at 2003 (10) SCC 691 held that since the abatement results in denial of hearing on the merits of the case, the provision of abatement has to be construed strictly. On the other hand, the prayer for setting aside an abatement and the dismissal consequent upon an abatement, have to be considered liberally. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a simple prayer for bringing the legal representatives on record without specifically praying for setting aside of an abatement may in substance be construed as a prayer for setting aside abatement. So also a prayer for setting aside abatement as regard one of the plaintiffs can be construed as a prayer for setting aside the abatement of the suit in its entirety. After going through the application for substitution this Court finds that the opposite parties have sufficiently explained the time when they came to know about such fact and also explained the delay in filing the application for substitution. 3 The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh & Ors. (supra) shall squarely apply to the facts of the case in hand. Since the reasons for the delay in filing the application has been sufficiently explained, this Court is of the considered view that the said application can be construed to be prayer for setting aside abatement as well as condonation of delay. The learned trial judge was right in allowing the prayer for substituting the heirs and heiress in place and stead of the deceased plaintiffs. This Court does not find any reasons to interfere with such order. Accordingly, CO 2471 of 2025 stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)