R.F.NARIMAN,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The present case arises out of a Title Suit filed in January, 2006 by one Samar Kumar Roy against Smt. Jharna Bera. The suit is instituted as a Title Suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for a declaratory decree, and under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for perpetual injunction. According to the plaintiff, the father of the defendant was a senior employee under the Directorate of Employment Exchange, Government of West Bengal. The plaintiff was a junior employee under the same Directorate. According to the plaintiff, by blackmail and coercion, a show of marriage was arranged by the defendant's father with the plaintiff by registration of the said marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The averments in the plaint are that no essential ceremonies of a Hindu marriage were performed and that there was no consummation of the said marriage thereafter. After narrating a litany of wrongs by the defendant, the plaintiff asked for the following reliefs: A. A decree of declaration that the defendant is not legally married wife of the plaintiff and that she has no right to claim the plaintiff as her husband inasmuch as the alleged marriages between the plaintiff and the defendant are not legal, valid and tenable in law; B. Permanent injunction against the defendant restraining her from claiming the plaintiff as her husband and disturbing the plaintiff at his office, on the way of the plaintiff going to office and coming back home; C. Temporary injunction; D. For such other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to in law and equity."
(3.) A written statement was filed by the present respondent in the said suit, denying all the allegations contained therein. While the said suit was pending, the plaintiff died on 10th October, 2012. On 19th December, 2012, the plaintif's mother applied under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to be added as a legal representative of the plaintiff. By an order dated 17th April, 2013, the plaintiff's mother was so substituted. Against the said order, a revision was filed, and by the impugned order dated 15th October, 2015, the order dated 17th April, 2013 was set aside, it being held that after the death of the plaintiff, no right to sue survived in favour of the plaintiff's mother.;