S.N.SANYAL,J. - (1.) This application under Sec. 115 of the Cede of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the learned Munsif dated May 16, 1980 rejecting the prayer for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Kirtibas Sardar. The petitioners have filed an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in tiling the application for revision. The order complained of was made on May 16, 1980 and the application for revision was filed on September 3, 1980. In their application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act the petitioners have stated the reasons for the delay. After hearing the learned Advocates and considering the materials, I am of opinion that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. The delay is thus condoned. The point that arises in this Rule is whether an application for substitution by the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff in a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs' right as Bargadars and for permanent injunction and damages should be governed by the provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by the provisions of Sec. 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The petitioner No. 1 and Kirtibas Sardar, predecessor of petitioners 2 to 6, filed Title Suit no. 501 of 1974 before the Munsif, First Court, Baruipur for declaration of right as Bargadar and for permanent injunction and damages. Kirtibas died on August 2, 1979 and the petitioners 2 to 6 filed an application on September 19, 1979 for being substituted in place of the deceased plaintiff. The learned Munsif rejected the said application on the ground that the bargadarship as claimed by the deceased plaintiff was not admitted nor the heir who was to represent him was determined in accordance with Sec. 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petitioners thereafter obtained the present Rule.
(2.) The learned Advocate for the petitioners has argued that the learned Munsif was wrong in holding that determination under Sec. 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was necessary before there was substitution. It has been argued that as this was a suit before a Civil Court, the provisions of Order 22 C. P. Code were applicable The petitioners 2 to 6 as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff filed an application within time and as such they should have been substituted.
(3.) The learned Advocate for the opposite party has contended that before substitution there was the question of determination as provided by Sec. 15A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act As there was no such determination, the learned Munsif was justified in rejecting the application. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate for the opposite party has referred to the case of Probodh Chandra Samanta v/s. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1981 (1) CLJ 520. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the decision referred to above can be distinguished as in that case the question arose before an authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and not before the Civil Court.;