- (1.) As per the Stamp Reporter's report, the appeal is a defective one. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants undertakes to pay the deficit court fees of Rs.68/- in course of the day.
(2.) It is correctly reported by the Stamp Reporter that the names of the defendants/appellants as mentioned in the decree of the learned first appellate court do not match with the names of the defendants/appellants mentioned in the memorandum of appeal. To clarify the above discrepancy, an application has been taken out by the appellants wherein it is stated that Swapna Chatterjee, the defendant/appellant died during the pendency of the first appeal and her heirs and legal representatives were all substituted in her place in the first appeal. However, the names of the substituted heirs and legal representatives of the said defendant/appellant were not mentioned in the certified copy of the decree of the first appellate court. Since the heirs and legal representatives of the said Swapna Chatterjee were substituted in the place of Swapna Chatterjee, since deceased, in the first appeal, we do not find any error in mentioning the names of the legal representatives of the said deceased Swapna Chatterjee in the memorandum of appeal. The instant appeal now, in our view, is well maintainable in the form which is framed by the appellants.
(3.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th March, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah in Title Appeal No. 186 of 2010 affirming the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 7th Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 79 of 2008 at the instance of the defendants/appellants. Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;