DIPANKAR DATTA, J. - (1.) By presenting RVWO 44 of 2016 (being the memorandum of review), the plaintiffs in C.S. 136 of 2006 and the respondents 1 to 3 in APOT 212 of 2016 (hereafter the petitioners) seek review of judgment and order dated July 12, 2016 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Arijit Banerjee, J.) was a member, while disposing of the appeal and the application filed therein (GA 1950 of 2016). GA 2924 of 2016 is an application in RVWO 44 of 2016 seeking, inter alia, review of the judgment and order referred to above as well as for other reliefs. Incidentally, the appellants in APOT 212 of 2016 are the contesting respondents in RVWO 44 of 2016 (hereafter the appellants).
(2.) A quick recap of the facts and circumstances leading to the judgment and order under review, as a prologue to noting the contentions advanced by the parties and recording our conclusions in regard thereto, would be in order.
(3.) On May 25, 2006, CS No. 136 of 2006 was instituted by the petitioners against several defendants, including the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants who was impleaded as defendant no.5. After service of summons, the defendant no.5 entered appearance and sought for time to contest the suit by filing his written statement. It appears that having failed to file it within the stipulated time, he prayed for extensions on a couple of occasions and his prayers were duly granted. Even then, the defendant no.5 did not file his written statement. On December 23, 2008, the defendant no.5 breathed his last. By a letter dated January 16, 2009, Mr. Tapas Saha, learned advocate representing the defendant no. 5 informed M/s G. More and Co., advocate representing the petitioners, of the death of the defendant no.5 and furnished particulars of his legal representatives. For long 7 years thereafter, the petitioners did not take steps in the suit to bring on record such legal representatives by making an application for substitution; instead, on or about March 22, 2016, GA 932 of 2016 was taken out claiming exemption under Order XXII Rule 4(4), CPC as well as for judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 thereof. Prayer 'a' of GA 932 of 2016 reads as follows: "(a) Your petitioners being the plaintiffs above named be exempted from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives, if any, of the deceased defendant No.5;" ;