Today is fixed for hearing of the MA/84/2021 which was filed by OP 1, 2 and 3. Objection to the said application has been filed by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant.

The applicants are found absent on call. The Ld. Advocate of the applicants is also absent. After hearing the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and perusing the materials available on record we find that for the death of OP 5 prior to the institution of this case the MA/84/2021 was filed.

The OPs have wanted to say that the mother case being no. 317/2020 is not maintainable as the same was filed against a death person i.e. OP 5.

Admittedly the OP 5 passed away prior to the date of filing this case i.e. on 25.11.2020. It is the contention of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant that his client was unaware about the said death, for which the case was filed against the OPs including OP 5. According to him, he gathered knowledge about the death of OP 5 from the application filed by the OP 1, 2 and 3.

The right to be sued, in this case survived even after the death of OP 5 and the legal heirs of OP 5 have wanted to be substituted in place of them.

A grave unjustice would result from the denial of their prayer, if made.

Therefore, for proper adjudication of this case the legal heirs of the OP 5 should be brought on record.

The Miscellaneous Application being no. 84 for dismissal of this case, as such stands dismissed. The prayer for substitution of the legal heirs of OP 5 is therefore allowed. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant is directed to file amended complaint by 30.03.2022.

Let plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT