Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. - (1.) BY the order impugned the learned judge in the lower appellate court rejected the application for substitution filed by the respondent no. 2 consequent upon the death of the sole appellant. The suit was for specific performance of contract. The defendant no. 1, who was the appellant before the lower appellate court, was the original owner.
(2.) THE respondent nos. 2 to 63 were added subsequently in the suit as subsequent purchasers. They claimed that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice. However, the plaintiff disputed such contention. Ultimately, the suit was decreed.
(3.) THE defendant no. 1 preferred an appeal. The defendant no. 1, namely, Raj Krishna Das, died intestate on March 18, 2003. The respondent no. 2 filed two applications for substitution consequent upon the death of Raj Krishna Das. Those applications were filed on July 23, 2003. The first application was for substitution and the second such application was an application for condonation of delay.;