KAILASH CHANDRA versus CHANDRA PRASAD AGARWAL AND ANOTHERA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Kailash Chandra v. Chandra Prasad Agarwal And Anothera - WRIT - C No. 5336 of 1982 [2006] RD-AH 12884 (3 August 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

(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5336 of  1982

Kailash Chandra  vs.  Chandrika Prasad Agarwal and others

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.  Petitioner is one of the defendants in O.S. No.124 of 1970 which at the relevant time was pending before Munsif, Kasganj.  Defendant no.12 in the suit died.  Substitution application was dismissed as barred by time.  Plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4(4) C.P.C. for exempting him from substituting the legal representatives of defendant no.12.  Said application was allowed by the trial court on 13.10.1980.  Petitioner filed civil revision no.87 of 1980.  Ist Additional District Judge, Etah through judgment and order dated 4.2.1982 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.

Defendant no.2 had not filed written statement hence Order 22 Rule 4(4) C.P.C.was squarely applicable.  It appears that plaintiff had almost simultaneously filed applications for substitution and for exemption from substitution.  Order dismissing substitution application as barred by time was passed by the trial court on 12.9.1980. Thereafter on 13.10.1980 application for exemption numbered as 91A was allowed.  

I do not find least error in the impugned orders.  It is exactly such type of contingency for which Order 22 4(4) C.P.C. has been enacted.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

As writ petition has been dismissed hence there is no need to issue notice or to pass any order on application for substitution of legal representatives of some of the respondents in the writ petition.

3.8.2006

RS/-

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

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.