Shivakant Prasad, J. - (1.) It appears from order dated September 22, 2015 that the appellant was exempted from substituting the heirs and legal representatives of proforma respondent nos. 3 to 6 in the memorandum-of-appeal as it is evident from the judgement and the decree passed by the learned trial Court as well as that of the learned Appellate Court that the proforma respondent nos. 3 to 6 never contested the suit.
(2.) It appears from order dated September 22, 2015 that after the death of respondent no. 1 his heirs and legal representatives were substituted and it also appears that respondent no. 1(1) Padmabati Mondal died on January 18, 2011 leaving behind her heirs and legal representatives, who were already parties to the appeal and their names already on record as respondent nos. 1(2) to 1(4). The name of the respondent no. 2 was deleted as per the direction of this Court.
(3.) Order dated August 8, 2015 reveals that direction was given for service upon the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 2 and it was further recorded that if any of the contesting respondents and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 2 chooses either to refuse to accept the copy of the applications or not to appear on the next date of hearing the applications will be decided in their absence. It appears that despite service effected on the respondents on record none has entered appearance. The second appeal is of the year 1966 and the original paper books and the records were found missing and they have been reconstructed. Now the appeal as a whole is required to be taken to consideration on its merit.;