S.K.Hazra, J. - (1.)In this matter on January 14, 1972 an application was made by the plaintiff for recording the death of defendant No. 1 Harilal N. Shukla and for substitution of his heirs in his place. The defendant No. 2 appeared through Ms advocate before me. By consent, order was passed in terms of prayers in the petition. One of the prayers in the petition was prayer (f); wherein, the petitioner prayed that a fresh writ of summons be issued for service on the substituted defendants. By consent, order was passed in terms of prayer (f) of the writ of summons. Thereafter at the time of settlement of the draft, a question arose as to whether the fresh writ of summons should be served on the substituted defendants. The matter was mentioned before me on March 1, 1972, on behalf of the plaintiff, who contended that a fresh writ of summons need not be issued but only the above order may be served on the substituted defendants. Thereafter, I directed that the Registrar-in-Insolvency may submit a note on tine point as to the practice followed in such matters.
(2.)Mr. S. K. Mitra. Registrar-In-Insolvency, has submitted before me a well-considered note on March 7. 1972. In the note prepared by the Registrar-in-Insolvency it is stated as follows :--
(3.)An order for substitution in place of a deceased defendant is made under Order XXII, Rule 4 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 4 (21 of the said Order XXII runs as follows :--
"Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant."