Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHYAM SINGH AND OTHERS versus DEVENDRA AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shyam Singh And Others v. Devendra And Others - SECOND APPEAL No. 2745 of 1982 [2006] RD-AH 923 (13 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

13-01-2006 Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.  

Order on

1-Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No.14536 of 1999.

2-Civil Misc. Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.14537 of 1999.

The aforementioned applications have been filed on behalf of the defendants-appellants consequent to the death of the defendant-respondent No.7 (Channu Lal).

It is, inter-alia, prayed in the aforementioned Civil Misc. Substitution Application No. 14536 of 1999 (shown at Serial No. 1 above) that the name of the said Channu Lal (defendant-respondent No.7) be expunged from the array of parties in the Second Appeal, and in his place, the names of his heirs and legal representatives, mentioned in paragraph 1 of the said application, be substituted as the defendants-respondents Nos. 7/1, 7/2 and 7/3, respectively.

It may be mentioned that the names of the heirs and legal representatives of the said Channu Lal (defendant-respondent No.7), as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the said Substitution Application, are Ram Nath, Ram Autar and Kallu. The details in regard to the said heirs and legal representatives of the said Channu Lal are also given in the said Substitution Application.

As regards Civil Misc. Application (For Condonation of Delay) No.14537 of 1999 (shown at Serial No.2 above), it is, inter-alia, prayed in the said application that the delay in filing the Substitution Application be condoned.

The aforementioned applications are supported by a Joint Affidavit, sworn by Shyam Singh (defendant-appellant No.1) on 25th February, 1999.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Joint Affidavit that the said Channu Lal (defendant-respondent No.7) died on 15-10-1983 ; and that the said Channu Lal (defendant-respondent No.7) had not filed any written statement, nor had he contested the Suit, nor had he filed any Appeal before the Court below ; and that the said Channu Lal (defendant-respondent No.7) was impleaded in the Second Appeal as Proforma-Respondent No.7.

It is, inter-alia, further stated in the said Joint Affidavit that the defendants-appellants were not aware about the technicality of law of Substitution ; and that on 14th February, 1999, the said Shyam Singh (defendant-appellant No.1), who was doing pairvi in the Second Appeal, came to Allahabad to know the position of the Second Appeal from his counsel- Sri S.C. Verma, Advocate ; and that during discussion, the said Shyam Singh (defendant-appellant No.1) told his counsel that the said Channu Lal (defendant-respondent No.7) and Chhotey Lal (defendant-appellant No.3) had died long ago ; and that thereupon, Sri S.C. Verma, Advocate asked the said Shyam Singh (defendant-appellant No.1) to go back and come after collecting the relevant details for taking necessary steps for substituting the heirs of the deceased in the Second Appeal ; and that the said Shyam Singh (defendant-appellant No. 1) again came back to Allahabad on 25th February, 1999 after collecting the relevant details, and gave instructions to Sri S.C. Verma, Advocate, who thereafter, prepared the aforementioned applications and the said joint Affidavit, and the same were being filed without any further delay.

By the order dated 18th March, 2005 passed on the aforementioned applications, notice was directed to be issued to the proposed heirs of the defendant-respondent No.7.

It further appears that pursuant to the said order dated 18th March, 2005, notices were issued to the proposed heirs of the defendant-respondent No.7.

The Office Report dated 20th May, 2005 / 24th May, 2005, inter-alia, shows that the said notices were personally served on the proposed heirs and legal representatives of the defendant-respondent No.7.

The said Office Report, inter-alia, further states "neither any Vakalatnama nor Counter Affidavit on behalf of proposed heirs of deceased respondent No.7 has been received so far."

From the above narration of facts, it is evident that the said Channu Lal (defendant-respondent No.7) did not contest the Suit, nor did he file any Appeal before the Court below. It is further evident that the said Channu Lal (defendant-respondent No.7) was impleaded as Proforma-Respondent No.7 in the Second Appeal.

Reasons for the delay in filing the Substitution Application, have been stated in the said Joint Affidavit.

No Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the proposed heirs and legal representatives, despite service of notice on the aforementioned applications having been effected on them.

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the aforementioned applications deserve to be allowed.

The aforementioned Civil Misc. Application (For Condonation of Delay) No. 14537 of 1999 (shown at Serial No. 2 above) is accordingly allowed. Delay in filing the Substitution Application is condoned. The abatement of Second Appeal is set aside.

Further, the aforementioned Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No. 14536 of 1999 is allowed.

Let the name of the said Channu Lal (defendant-respondent No.7) be struck off from the array of parties in the Second Appeal, and in his place, the names of his heirs and legal representatives, namely, Ram Nath, Ram Autar and Kallu, whose details are given in paragraph No.1 of the aforementioned Substitution Application, be substituted as the defendants-respondents Nos. 7/1, 7/2 and 7/3, respectively.

Let necessary amendments be made within four weeks.

1-Civil Misc. (Condonation of Delay) Application No. 14532 of 1999.

2-Civil Misc. (Substitution) Application No.14533 of 1999.  

Office is directed to submit report regarding service of notice on the aforementioned applications, stated to have been issued, pursuant to the order dated 18th March, 2005 passed on the aforementioned applications.

List after four weeks.

Second Appeal No. 2745 of 82/AK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.