JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) This second appeal was listed for hearing under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the time when this appeal was taken up for hearing for its admission under the provision of Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the report of the Stamp Reporter was brought to our notice.
(2.) We find from the report of the Stamp Reporter that the appellant no.1(a) and the respondent nos. 9, 17 and 22 in the first appeal, were not impleaded as parties in this appeal. Subsequently, the appellants herein have taken out the present application mentioning therein that the appellant no.1(a) and the respondent nos. 9, 17 and 22 in the first appeal, died during the pendency of the suit and thus the suit stood abated as their legal representatives were not brought on record and the decree was passed by the learned Trial Judge in the abated suit, in ignorance of the death of those parties.
(3.) Mst. Tetle who was impleaded as appellant no.1(a) in the first appeal died on 15th December, 2010. Maifun Nissa who was impleaded as respondent no.9 in the first appeal died on 14th June, 2010. Taukir who was impleaded as respondent no. 17 in the first appeal died on 17th January, 2007. Zarina Khatun who was impleaded as respondent no. 22 in the first appeal died on 23rd February, 2009. The suit was disposed of by the learned Trial Court on 24th May, 2012. Thus, it appears that all those abovenamed person died during the pendency of the suit. Their legal heirs and/or heiresses were not brought on record by way of substitution in the suit.;