Abated the suit
The High Court Division on through discussion remanded the case to the trial Court for rehearing on the Advocate Commissioner's report for deciding the actual area of the suit khatian and upon considering the report. if lawful accepts the same in evidence. That suit shall not abate for non-substitution of a dead party in appeal. Reference may be had to the case reported in 31 DLR(AD)320 and the trial Court shall allocate the saham of the parties to their respective entitlement. With aforesaid finding, inter-alia, the revision was disposed of. (Para-9, Mr. Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim). 6 ADC 54: Mostafa Kamal Vs. Md. Nasir Ahmed & others: Section 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877:
Suit could not be abated on the death of a juristic person
Order 22 Rules 3, 4 & 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The plaintiff is not an individual, it is a temple, a juristic person who has instituted the suit through its next friend and on his death, an Advocate was appointed as secretary of the plaintiff. He is the successor in office of the plaintiff and he is not praying for substitution in the suit as his heir or successor. He is praying for leave to proceed with the suit by substituting his name in place of the deceased. The suit could not be abated on the death of a juristic person under Order XXII Rule 3, CPC in that Rule 10 of Order XXII is applicable in this case. The Court below illegally abated the suit. (Para-23, Mr. Justice SK Sinha). 61 DLR 217: Amarbati Natya Mandir Vs. State: Ref:14 DLR 364, ILR 1955(Cutt)653, AIR 1943(PC)7, AIR 1975(SC)2159, AIR 1979(Bom)109.
