D/L- 7 14/09/2026 Ct. No.- 6 Aritra C.O. 4278 of 2025 Amita Sarangi & Anr. Vs. Sri Debabrata Nanda & Ors. Mr. Sibasis Ghosh Mr. Arkoday Mukherjee ….for the petitioners Mr. Amit Baran Dash Ms. Ankana Sarkar Ms. Sharmi Das ….for the O.P. No.1 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 plaintiffs and is directed against an order being No.84 dated August 11, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Court at Contai in Title Suit NO.69 of 2014. By the order impugned the application under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected only the ground that the same was filed after the suit abated upon the death of defendant no.4. After going through the order impugned this Court finds that the application under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of the Code of the Civil Procedure was rejected by relying upon a decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nanigopal Mukherjee vs. Panchanan Mukherjee, reported at 2 59 CWN 304. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Re: Nisit Mohan Chatterjee, reported at (1993) 1 CLT 338 (HC) corresponding to 97 CWN 636 held that the amended provisions of Order XXII Rule 4(4) would be available notwithstanding abatement which is an automatic process and not dependent on any order of Court till the order of abatement has been recorded. The Hon’ble Division Bench further recorded that the new concept is incompatible with the ratio of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Nanigopal vs. Panchanan, reported at 59 CWN 304 and it was held that the application for exemption can be made even after abatement has taken place. The Hon’ble Division Bench further recorded that the earlier Division Bench decision can no longer be held to be a binding precedent. This Court finds that the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Nisit Mohan Chatterjee (supra) was not brought to the notice of the learned trial judge and for such reason the impugned order was passed rejecting the application under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The order impugned stands set aside. The application under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure stand restored to the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), 2nd Court at Contai. The learned trial judge is directed to 3 decide the said applications afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Nisit Mohan Chatterjee (supra). With the aforesaid observations and directions, CO 4278 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.)