Mr. S. Deb vs None
2021 Latest Caselaw 135 Tri

                                 Page 1 of 2


                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA

                        REVIEW PET NO.5 OF 2021

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH

Present:
For the Petitioner(s)             : Mr. S. Deb, Sr. Advocate.
                                    Mr. Somik Deb, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s)             : None.

08.02.2021

Order

Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr.

Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners.

This is a review petition, wherein, the petitioners have

urged to review the judgment of this Court passed on

01.07.2020 in RFA No.11 of 2017 titled as Smti. Lanibala

Rudra Paul & 5 ors Vs. Aswini Rudra Paul, having died, his

legal heir son, namely Anil Rudra Paul also having died,

his legal heirs sons namely, 1) Sri Ranjit Rudra Paul &

ors., whereby and whereunder, this Court has allowed the

appeal.

While pressing the instant review petition, Mr. Deb, learned

Sr. counsel has submitted that during the pendency of the appeal

and before passing the judgment, the respondent No.8 died. So,

the appeal had been abated. As such, the judgment passed by

this Court has become nullity.

I respectfully differ with the submission of the learned

Sr.counsel for the reason that no one had brought the fact to the

notice of the Court at the time of hearing and passing of the

judgment. Moreover, it is a suit for partition. If in the instant

case, the respondent No.8 died during the pendency of the

appeal, then, his share would be devolved to his legal heirs and

while partitioning the suit land, the legal heirs will get the share

of respondent No.8 automatically. By way of submitting that the

exchange deed itself spoke about the fact that one Aswini Rudra

Paul was the absolute owner having all right, title and interest

over the suit property, in my opinion, learned Sr. counsel is

trying to reopen the issue which has already been decided by

this Court.

Having viewed so, I do not find any merit in the instant

review petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

JUDGE

suhanjit