Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMZAN BUX versus SMT. KAILASHIA & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramzan Bux v. Smt. Kailashia & Others - SECOND APPEAL No. 2455 of 1984 [2006] RD-AH 11278 (11 July 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

11-07-2006 Hon'ble S.P.Mehrotra, J.

Order on

Civil Misc.(Substitution) Application No. 78823 of 2006.

The aforementioned application has been filed on behalf of Smt. Hamida Bano and 5 others (applicants) consequent to the death of Ramzan Bux (defendant-appellant).

It is, inter-alia, prayed in the aforementioned Substitution Application that the applicants (Smt. Hamida Bano and 5 others) be substituted in place of the said Ramzan Bux (defendant-appellant).

The aforementioned Substitution Application is accompanied by an Affidavit, sworn on 9th April, 2006.

It is, inter-alia, stated in the said Affidavit that the said Ramzan Bux (defendant-appellant) died on 14th January, 2006 leaving behind him, the applicants as his only heirs and legal representatives ; and that the applicants have been residing in the disputed accommodation with the said Ramzan Bux (defendant-appellant) throughout and also at the time of the death of the said Ramzan Bux (defendant-appellant).

By the order dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the Joint Registrar, notice was directed to be issued on the aforementioned Substitution Application.

Office has submitted its report dated 5th May, 2006, inter-alia, stating that the learned counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned Substitution Application has not taken steps to serve the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The said Office Report, however, further states that a copy of the Substitution Application has been served on the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

As the copy of the aforementioned Substitution Application has already been served on the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, no notice need be sent to the aforesaid plaintiffs-respondents, pursuant to the said order dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the Joint Registrar on the aforementioned Substitution Application.

Sri J.H. Khan holding brief for Sri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants in the aforementioned Substitution Application, and Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava holding brief for S/Sri R.K. Pandey and S.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, are present.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.

Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava holding brief for S/Sri R.K. Pandey and S.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 states that the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have no objection to the aforementioned Substitution Application being allowed.

As noted above, the said Ramzan Bux (defendant-appellant) died on 14th January, 2006.

The aforementioned Substitution Application was filed on 10th April, 2006, and the same was thus within time.

There is no opposition to the aforementioned Substitution Application being allowed.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the aforementioned Substitution Application deserves to be allowed, and the same is, accordingly, allowed.

Let the name of the said Ramzan Bux (defendant-appellant) 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, Smt. Hamida Bano, Smt. Kaneez Bano, Anwar Ahmad, Km.  Sima Parvin, Smt. Parveen Bibi and  Smt. Shahnaz (applicants in the aforementioned  Substitution Application), whose details are given in the cause title of the aforementioned Substitution Application, be substituted as the defendants-appellants Nos. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 and 1/6, respectively.

Let necessary amendments be made within six weeks.

List, thereafter.

Second Appeal No. 2455 of 84/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.