High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Kailash Chandra v. Chandra Prasad Agarwal And Anothera - WRIT - C No. 5336 of 1982  RD-AH 12884 (3 August 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5336 of 1982
Kailash Chandra vs. Chandrika Prasad Agarwal and others
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.